LAWS(BOM)-1951-9-12

AMINSA Vs. KALLAPPA ADIVEPPA

Decided On September 21, 1951
AMINSA Appellant
V/S
KALLAPPA ADIVEPPA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals raise a pure question of law under Section 84 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879. The facts giving rise to the suits in which this question is raised are simple and are not seriously in dispute. I will mention the facts so far as they are relevant to the determination of the question.

(2.) THE plaintiffs in the two suite are the same, while the defendants are different. Plaintiff No. 2 is the owner of two lands, Survey No. 391 and 368. For the year 1945-46, plaintiff No. 2 let out to defendant Kallappa Survey No. 391. Plaintiff No. 2 also let out Survey No. 368 to Gurappa. Each was an oral tenancy. Kallappa is defendant in suit No. 333, while Gurappa is defendant in suit No. 334. It is not in dispute that the period expired on March 31, 1946, in each case. On April 1, 1946, plaintiff No. 2 let out to plaintiff No. 1 the two lands for the consideration of Rs. 500 for a period of one year. The payment of rent was made in advance and this is evidenced by a receipt which is Exhibit 54 in the case. On May 21, 1946, plaintiff No. 1 executed in favour of plaintiff No. 2 a rent note evidencing the transaction of tenancy between plaintiff No. 1 and plaintiff No. 2. That rent-note is Exhibit 55 in the case. It seems that two defendants offered obstruction in about June of 1946. The defendants thereafter filed suits for injunction against plaintiff No. 1 in the Mamlatdar's Court.

(3.) IN the meanwhile, the two plaintiffs filed the 'two suits giving rise to these two appeals for possession of the lands in suit against defendant. Kallappa and defendant Gurappa. The plaintiffs alleged that the lease in favour of the defendant in each case expired on March 31, 1946, and thereafter plaintiff No. 2 let out the two lands in suit, to plaintiff No. 1 and that it was only after plaintiff No. 1 obtained possession of the lands and per-formed summer operations in the lands that the defendant in each case falsely contended that the land had been leased to him for the year 1946-47.