ATMARAM PANDUJI TIDKE Vs. PRABHAWATIBAI DATTATRAYA PAKODE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application by the original defendant No. I against the judgment dated 21st November 1967 of the learned Civil Judge. Senior Division, Yeotmal, deciding certain preliminary issues pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Court against the applicant.

(2.) THE dispute is about survey No. 51 of village Madni, tahsil and district Yeotmal, admeasuring about 35 acres 36 gunthas. One Dattatraya, who is the defendant No. 2 in the suit, was the owner of the said land. Atmaram, the defendant No. 1. was his tenant in the year 1958-59. However, on 7th May 1963 Atmaram executed a receipt in favour of Dattatraya surrendering pos- session of the said land to Dattatraya. Thereafter, on 7-12-1964 by a registered partition deed between Prabhawatibai wife of Dattatraya and her husband, the said Dattatraya, the said land came to the share of the said Prabhawatibai. Whether Prabhawatibai was put in separate possession of the land pursuant to the deed of partition or not is a question in dispute. It also appears that Dattatraya, the defendant No. 2 and Prabhawatibai his wife, the plaintiff, are not on good terms with each other. On 4th May 1966 Atmaram served a notice on Dattatraya asking him to restore possession of the suit land to him, contending that the surrender dated 7th May 1963 was contrary to the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidar-bha Region) Act, 1958. Dattatraya received the said notice on 14th May 1966 and it is alleged by Atmaram that as a result of this notice Dattatraya gave him possession of the suit land. The question of this possession is also a matter in dispute. On 5th April 1966 Atmaram applied to the Tahsildar for determination of the price to be paid by him to Dattatraya on the contention that on 1st April 1963 he had become the owner of the land under the said Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958. It appears on 5th April 1967 Dattatraya appeared before the Tahsildar and stated that he was willing to sell the suit land to Atmaram for Rs. 1200/ -. Thereupon, on 28th April 1967 the Tahsildar made an order directing Atmaram to pay Rs. 1200/- on or before 31st March 1968, and on 6th June 1967 Atmaram deposited Rs. 1200/- with the Tahsildar. It appears all these proceedings between Atmaram and Dattatraya were without the knowledge of and over the head of the plaintiff, and Dattatraya was acting in the manner he did notwithstanding his being a party to the registered partition deed dated 7-12-1964.

(3.) ON 27th July 1966 the plaintiff made a complaint to the police alleging that she was in possession of the suit land and Atmaram was attempting to take forcible possession of it from her. On 2-8-1966 she instituted proceedings against Atmaram under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On 16th November 1966 as a result of inquiry under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Magistrate held that Atmaram was in possession of the suit land. He, therefore, prohibited the plaintiff from interfering with the possession of Atmaram except by due process of law. Consequently on 15th December 1966 the plaintiff filed the suit from which the present revision application arises. This suit was based on title and prayed for possession and also impugned the order under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On 3rd August 1967 the plaintiff amended the plaint with the leave of the Court, dropped her prayers as to declaration of title and impugning the order under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and confined her case to the allegation that within six months prior to the date of the suit she had been hi possession of the suit property but had been dispossessed by Atmaram, defendant Ho. 1, within the said six months. She converted the suit to one under S. 6 of the Specific Relief Act.