PARSI PANCHAYAT Vs. HAMIRBHAI BACHUBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT revision application has been filed by the applicant-original plaintiff for the prayer that the judgment and order passed by the lower appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No.2 of 1984 dated 20th April, 1991 confirming the judgment of the trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No.12 of 1980 dated 30.8.1983 may be quashed and set aside on the grounds set out in the memo revision application inter-alia that both the Courts below have erred in not taking into consideration the principles laid down in judgment passed by this Court in the case of Nanumal Rijumal V/s. Lilaram Vensimal and Anr. reported in Volume 18 1977 GLR 858 while considering the issue regarding transmission of the tenant on death of the original tenant. It is also contended that both the Courts below misconstrued the documents on record for coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff-Panchayat might have given the rooms as well as the whole compound to the defendant on rent and thereby, seriously erred in drawing inference on the basis of preponderance of probabilities which cannot be invoked in the case where an interest in the property is created. It is also contended that lower appellate Court has failed to appreciate that the subject matter of leasehold rights of the immovable property cannot be decided on the basis of inferences and surmises dehors of the authentic documents on record and show that the deceased was a tenant of the one room only.

(2.) THE facts of the case briefly stated are that the petitioner, original plaintiff, Parsi Panchayat filed a Civil Suit No.12 of 1980 before Civil Judge (J.D.), Bharuch for the possession of the one room which has let out to the defendant and also the compound which was used by the defendant-tenant by making a shed for the cattle. THE said suit was dismissed by the trial Court after considering the evidence and the rival submissions by the parties vide judgment and order dated 30th August, 1983. THErefore, Regular Civil Appeal No.2 of 1984 was preferred before the lower appellate Court (District Court) which also dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and order passed in Regular Civil Suit No.12 of 1980. THErefore, the present revision application has been filed by the petitioner, original plaintiff, on the grounds as set out herein above.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel, Mr.Hathi, has also referred to and relied upon the judgment in the case of Patel Chandulal Trikamlal and Ors. V/s. Rabari Prabhat Harji and Anr. reported in 1996 (1) GLR 724 and submitted that facts of that case are merely similar to the facts of the present case. He referred to observations in the judgment and submitted that in that case also the issue was with regard to whether the land was given for the purpose of tethering the cattle or not. He submitted that it has been observed that it was an obligation on the tenant not to trespass upon the adjacent land. He, therefore, submitted that present revision application may be allowed.