PANDURANG MAHADEO BHOSALE Vs. NAMDEO BHAIRU BHOSALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Counsel for the petitioner and respondent.

(2.) THE petitioner approached this Court challenging the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal passed in TNC/192/85 dated 5-7-1987 whereby the petitioners revision application was dismissed by the Tribunal.

(3.) THE short facts of the case is that the suit premises belong to one Shri. Mahadev Krishna Bhosale. He died in 1940 leaving his minor sons Panduranga and Sridhar. On the death of Mr. Bhosale to safeguard the interest of the minors namely Panduranga and Sridhar, Mr. Bhairu, father of the respondents herein, was appointed as Guardian vide order passed in Misc. Application No. 44/46 to look after the property and he was put into possession of the property. On the attainment of the majority, the said Panduranga and Sridhar applied for restoration of the land to them from Mr. Bhairu and by order dated 15-9-1958 the Court has directed the Collector to return the property to Panduranga and Sridhar. Subsequently two brothers partitioned the property and Bhairu respondents father was happened to be in possession of the share of Panduranga. Inspite of the order passed by the Court giving clear direction to the Collector, Panduranga could not succeed in getting the possession of the property from the said Bhairu. Ultimately he had approached Tenancy Awal Karkoon by filing Tenancy Case No. 34 of 1960 for restoration of the land. The Tenancy Awal Karkoon allowed that application. The respondents father Bhairu challenged that order by filing an Appeal No. 246 of 1967 but that appeal was dismissed. The order of Original Authority was confirmed by the Appellate Authority by an order dated 31-12-1968. Then Bhairu filed Revision being M. R. T. No. 26 of 1969 in which the revisional authority passed an order dated 12-5-1970. In the meantime on the strength of the appellate order the possession of the property was handed over to Panduranga. It is in these circumstances that the Revisional Authority by its order dated 12-5-1970 has directed Panduranga to hand over possession back to respondents. This created a very serious controversy which has pervaded the present proceedings.