RANGRAO NIVRITTI LAD Vs. VISHNU JOTI THORBOLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed by the original defendants 1 to 10 land owners in respect of Survey No. 743/2 situated at Village Kundal, Taluka Tasgaon. The suit land originally belonged to Shri Daulu Nana Thorbole who had four daughters. The suit land was bequeathed by him by executing a Will as back as in the year 1919 in favour of one of the daughters Smt. Radhabai w/o Bhau Ghadage, the predecessor in title of the petitioner herein. The respondent No. 1 claims to be the tenant in respect of the said suit land.

(2.) THE petitioners herein filed a suit being Suit No. 187 of 1970. Another suit came to be filed by the respondent No. 2 herein being Civil Suit No. 1 of 1972. Both the suits were filed for declaration and possession. In the said suits the respondent No. 1 raised a plea that he was the tenant of deceased Radhabai Ghadage; and therefore requested the Civil Court to frame issue as to whether he was the tenant in respect of the suit land, so that the said issue can be referred to the Tenancy Court for its decision in view of the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy Act. Accordingly Issue No. 10 was framed by Civil Court which reads thus : issue No. 10 : Does defendant No. 11 prove that he is a tenant in respect of the suit land ?"

(3.) THE said reference was made before the Tahsildar, Tasgaon, who in turn, after considering the materials on record, answered the said issue in the negative and against the respondent No. 1. According to the Tahsildar the said Radhabai had died on 24-2-1970 and the respondent No. 1 was very much aware about her death and therefore it was incumbent upon him to give intimation for purchase of land before 24-2-1972 to all the successors of Radhabai i. e. petitioners herein as required by section 32-F (1) (a) of the Act. The Tahsildar therefore held that the respondent No. 1 having failed to exercise the said option became liable to be evicted from the suit land under section 32-P (1) of the Act. The Tahsildar therefore concluded that the respondent No. 1 had lost his right to continue on the land as tenant, even assuming that he was inducted initially as tenant.