RAVJIBHAI VITHTHALBHAI TADVI Vs. SABARMATI ASHRAM GAUSHALA TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Second Appeal is filed by the Appellants/Original Defendants being aggrieved with the impugned judgment and order in Regular Civil Appeal No.3 of 2010 by the learned Additional District Judge, Kheda at Nadiad dated 7.12.2015 confirming the judgment and decree in Regular Civil Suit No. 66 of 1999 by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Kheda at Nadiad dated 30.3.2009 posing the substantial questions of law as follows:

(2.) The background of the facts as it emerges from the record are that the Respondent/Original Plaintiff is the Sabarmati Ashram Gaushala Trust, which is registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act as a Charitable Institute. The said Trust has been exempted under Section 88(B) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Tenancy Act") for which the entries are made in the revenue record. The Appellants herein had claimed the tenancy right under Section 32(g) of the Tenancy Act by initiating the proceedings, which came to be dismissed as discussed in the judgment impugned. However, as the Appellants have given the possession in spite of the notice under the provisions of the Tenancy Act terminating the tenancy, the possession has been handed over. Therefore, the suit came to be filed, which has been decreed and the Appeal filed before the first appellate court by the Appellants was also dismissed. Therefore, the present Second Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant as stated above claiming the tenancy rights on the grounds stated in the memo of Second Appeal that the certificate under Section 88(B) of the Tenancy Act has been produced and they are in possession since long. Therefore, learned Advocate Shri Manoj Shrimali for the Appellants submitted that the land is of two different villages i.e. Bahrampura and Govindpura and there is no certificate for exemption produced and therefore both the courts below have committed an error and he has therefore right to harp upon the possession to contend that the exemption is produced on record and therefore the present Second Appeal may be entertained.

(3.) Per contra, learned Senior Counsel Shri D.C. Dave appearing with learned Advocate Shri Jigar M. Patel for the Respondent/Original Plaintiff has referred to the background of the facts and submitted that the provisions of Section 88(B) of the Tenancy Act provide: