DAMU DHONDI DHEKANE Vs. PARVATIBAI HINDURAO JAGTAP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition arises out of proceedings initiated by the respondent original applicant landlady under section 32p of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The land in dispute originally bore Survey No. 97/1a/5. It was later formed into Gat No. 366. The land is situate at village Lohare, Taluka Wai, District Satara. It admeasures 35 gunthas out of which 28 gunthas are under cultivation and five gunthas are Pot Kharaba. The said land was originally owned by one Rama. He died leaving behind him two sons and two daughters. The eldest was Tukaram who was blind. Second was a daughter Vithabai. Third was a son Nathu who during his lifetime was insane. The fourth was a daughter Parvatibai who is the original applicant. Tukaram died on 27th April, 1976. Vithabai died on 18th December, 1977 and Nathu on 11th September, 1980. Tukaram during his life time on 11th March, 1976 executed a registered Will in favour of the applicant bequeathing various properties. The suit land, which is the subject matter of dispute under the present petition, did not form one of the properties which were bequeathed under the said Will.

(2.) ON 21st December, 1956 i. e. prior to the Tillers day Tukaram filed an application No. 1037 of 1957 against the opponent under section 31 for possession. A notice in respect of the said proceedings was duly served upon the opponent and statement of the opponent was recorded in the said proceedings. On 7th November, 1957 the said application under section 31 was dismissed.

(3.) AFTER the death of Tukaram which occurred on 27th April, 1976, mutation entry No. 295 dated 25th August, 1976 was certified in favour of the plaintiff in respect of several lands which were mutated in her favour. However, the suit land did not figure in the said mutation entry. On 5th May, 1977 the application filed an application under section 88-C for exemption certificate. The said application was filed against several tenants including the opponent. However, the suit land did not figure in the said application. In the said proceeding the statement of the opponent was recorded on 29th July, 1977 wherein he stated that he had no concern with the land which was the subject matter of the application under section 88-C. By a judgment and order dated 30th June, 1978 an Exemption Certificate under section 88-C was issued in favour of the applicant. The said Certificate did not relate to the suit land but inrespect of the other lands which were subject matter of the application. The said certificate was sought to be challenged by the tenants as also by the opponent. But the same was confirmed right upto this Court.