RAMCHANDRA BALWANTRAO DUBAL Vs. DHONDIRAM TATOBA KADAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is filed by the original plaintiff-landlord Ramchandra Balwantrao Dubal, challenging the legality and the correctness of the judgment and order dated March 31, 1975 passed by the learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Poona in Revision Application filed on 16-9-1974, against the decision in Tenancy Appeal No. 101 of 1973, dated 1-7-1974 by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Satara Division, Satara. The said Revision Application bears No. MRT NS. IX/7/74 (Ten A.B. 83/74) Poona.

(2.) It is necessary to state a few relevant facts which give rise to this Special Civil Application. The petitioner Ramchandra Dubal is the owner of the land bearing Revision S. No. 403/7, admeasuring 3 acres 8 gunthas of village Khodashi in Taluka Karad of Satara District. He executed a conditional sale (possessory mortgage) in respect of the suit land on June 23, 1952 in favour of respondent No. 2 Vyankatrao Ramchandra Dubal for a consideration of Rs. 2,000/-. It appears that under a registered lease-deed Dhondiram Tatoba Kadam and Shankar Babu Kadam were inducted as tenants on the said land by the petitioner Ramchandra Dubal. At the time of the execution of the conditional sale-deed, it is alleged that the tenants surrender their tenancy rights, restored the possession of the lands to he petitioner Dubal and the petitioner in return put the Mortgagee, respondent No. 2 in actual possession of the said land, on June 23, 1952. The tenant Dhondiram Tatoba Kadam has admitted that the tenants had surrendered their tenancy rights before the execution of the conditional sale-deed by the petitioner Ramchandra Dubal in favour of respondent No. 2 Vyankatrao Ramchandra Dubal. It further transpired that on June 30, 1952 respondent No. 1 Dhondiram Tatoba Kadam and Shankar Babu Kadam executed a registered lease deed in favour of Vyankatrao Ramchandra Dubal, respondent No. 2. The Revenue records show that the tenants were in possession of the suit land from 1951-52 to 1956-57. Thereafter the names of the tenants were deleted from the revenue record in respect of the suit land. However, a pencil entry has been made in favour of only one tenant Dhondiram Tatoba Kadam in respect of the lands for the year 1968-69.

(3.) The petitioner Ramchandra as mortgagor issued a notice to Vyankatrao Ramchandra Dubal, respondent No. 2 on April 26, 1969, to accept the amount of Rs. 2,000/- and redeem the said mortgage dated June 23, 1952 and asked for restoration of possession of the suit land. Respondent No. 2 Vyankatrao Dubal replied the said notice on May 4, 1969 to the petitioner. He refused to redeem the mortgage and deliver possession of the suit-land. Respondent No. 2 contended in his reply that the period of a conditional sale was over and he had become the absolute owner of the suit land, that he had made some improvements in the said land and having become the owner thereof, he refused to restore possession of the disputed land. After the receipt of the reply from the respondent No. 2, the petitioner filed Reg. C.S. No. 179 of 1971 on July 28, 1971, against the respondent No. 2, Dubal, because his name appeared in the revenue records. As there was a pencil entry in the record of rights in favour of the respondent No. 1 Dhondiram Tatoba Kadam, the tenant, Dhondiram, respondent No. 1, was joined as defendant No. 2 in the said suit because, respondent No. 2 managed to enter the name of respondent No. 1 Dhondiram, the tenant, in pencil in the village. Form VII-XXII (Kulkhand Column) for the year 1968-69. It is the contention of the petitioner in the said suit that respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2, both colluded with each other and took up a false defence. They also collusively got made the bogus entry in the record-of-rights. It was contended that respondent No. 2 Vyankatrao Dubal has no right to create any tenancy in respect of the suit land Rev. S. No. 403/7. In the said suit, respondent No. 1 Dhondiram, the tenant, gave his written statement, contending that he was a tenant before the mortgage and continued to be the tenant till the date of the suit. Respondent No. 2 Vyankatrao Dubal also supported the plea of respondent No. 1 Dhondiram Kadam with regard to the tenancy rights of respondent No. 1.