ADAM ASMAL ABHRAM DADABHAI Vs. HIRALAL CHIMANLAL THAKORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This group of Seven Civil Revision Applications under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code involves a common question of law as to whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide an issue referred to it by the Mamlatdar regarding the question of title which has arisen before him in a proceeding under the Tenancy Act. They are therefore heard together and disposed off by this common judgment.

(2.) The facts involved in these applications are as under :- In each case the petitioner is the alleged tenant against whom the opponent Hiralal Chimanlal Thakore who claimed to be the Inamdar of village Them in Broach Taluka had filed applications under section 29 for getting possession under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 Act LVII of 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In Civil Revision Application No. 216 of 1950 the notice to terminate the tenancy was given on 17th September 1951. In reply the petitioner having denied the title of the landlord another notice to terminate the tenancy was given on 19th December 1952 on the ground that the tenant had denied the landlords title. The Tenancy Case No. 267 of 1952 was filed under section 29 of the Act on 7th May 1952. The petitioner denied the title of the opponent and claimed to be hereditary proprietor and that he had been an owner by adverse possession and that there was no subsisting relationship of landlord and tenant. The said application was dismissed by the Mamlatdar on 26th October 1953 on the ground that it involved the question of title.....The learned Civil Judge numbered the reference as Civil Suit No. 178 of 1957 and decided the said reference on 22nd October 1958 holding that the petitioner-tenant was not the owner but the opponent landlord was the owner. He refused to draw a decree on 24th November 1958 Being aggrieved by the said finding the petitioner has come before us in revision. In the other matters also the facts are almost identical and the same points have been raised.

(3.) Mr. A. D. Desai while contending that such a reference was competent has raised three other points before us:-