USMAN ISMAIL ASMAL (NANA) Vs. KHATIJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the original plaintiff. He has challenged judgement passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat, dated 03.12.2016 below application Exhs 22, 29 and 37 filed by the respondents-original defendants. By such judgement, the learned Judge was pleased to reject the plaint in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) Brief facts emerging from the plaint are as under: Plaintiff claims to be a tenant of certain agriculture land (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the suit land') . He instituted proceedings under section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act ['The Tenancy Act' for short] for being declared as a tenant. Such application was granted by the Mamlatdar and ALT. He was declared as a tenant. The appeal filed by respondents No. 1 and 2, the landowners, was rejected by the Deputy Collector by an order dated 101.1996. No further proceedings were carried by the landowners against such orders of the Revenue Authorities. The plaintiff thereafter filed application under section 32G of the Tenancy Act for fixing the sale price of the land. The Mamlatdar and ALT by an order dated 14.05.2004 asked him to pay a sum of Rs. 15, 257/- within one year and provided that upon payment of such sum, necessary certificate under section 32M of the Act would be granted. He will become the purchaser of the land subject to restrictions envisaged under section 43 of the Act. The plaintiff paid over such sum. The landowners challenged the order of the Mamlatdar before the Deputy Collector, who rejected the said appeal on 01.04.2010. They thereafter filed revision petition before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The Tribunal under its judgement dated 15.07.2014 held that the plaintiff was related to the land owners and therefore, could not be declared as a tenant of the land. Orders passed by the Mamlatdar and GRT under section 32G of the Act came to be set aside. Plaintiff has filed writ petition before the High Court which is pending. Pending such proceedings, the landowners-defendants No. 1 and 2 sold the suit land to defendant No. 3. The plaintiff therefore filed the said suit and made the following prayers:

(3.) The defendants filed application Exhs 22, 29 and 37 before the Trial Court and urged the Trial Court to reject the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. In such application, they raised following main contentions: