TULSIRAM RAMKISAN Vs. RAMSINGH PANNUSINGH RAGHUWANSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these three appeals raise a somewhat ticklish question arising under the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951, and can be disposed of by a common judgment. The facts in these three cases are somewhat different and will have to be stated separately. I will set out the facts which have given rise to Second Appeal No. 494 of 1956 first.

(2.) CHANDRABHAN was the owner of the laud, Survey No. 43, situated at mouza Hirur. He was indebted to several persons and, therefore, he along with one of his sons Bapurao made an application to the Debt Relief Court under the Central Provinces and Berar Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1939, for the settlement of his debts. Ganpatsingh was among the creditors named in the petition. A scheme was prepared under Section 11 of the said Act on October 3, 1941. Chandrabhan died after the scheme was prepared leaving behind him four sons, Wasiideo, Ambadas, Bapurao and Madhukar. The Deputy Commissioner accorded sanction to the four sons of Chandrabhan for transferring the land for the purpose of satisfying the debts. In the meantime, the four sons of Chandrabhan passed a kaulpatta (exh. 2 D -2) under which they leased the land to Shriram and Balkrishna, defendants Nos. 2 and 4, for a period of six years. That was on January 15,. 1946. Again, on August 6, 1947, Wasudeo, one of the four sons of Chandrabhan, sold 1/4th share in the land to Tulsiram and Mahadeo, defendants Nos. 1 and 3. Similarly, on June 21, 1948, another son Bapurao sold his 1/4th share to the same persons, defendants Nos. 1 and 3. In accordance with the sanction given by the Deputy Commissioner, the four sons of Chandrabhan passed a sale -deed in favour of Ganpatsingh on July 26, 1947. The sale was subject to the lease granted in favour of defendants Nos. 2 and 4 in 1946. Ramsingh, who is the plaintiff in this case, is the nephew of Ganpat -singh, the purchaser under the sale -deed, dated July 26, 1946. He claimed that the suit land had fallen to his share in a partition with his uncle. He filed a suit against the four defendants contending that the lease in favour of defendants Nos. 2 and 4 is invalid and also contended that the sale -deeds in favour of defendants Nos. 1 and 3 were also invalid, and asked for possession on the basis of his title. The suit was resisted by the defendants on several grounds. One of them was that defendants Nos. 2 and 4 were protected lessees under Section 3 of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951. They also contended that the question as to whether they were protected lessees cannot be decided by the civil Court and must be referred to the Revenue Officer under Section 16 -A of the same Act. An issue was raised on that point in the trial Court which is issue No. 11. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the civil Court had jurisdiction to decide the question. It further held that the sale -deeds in favour of defendants Nos. 1 and 3 and also the kaulpatta in favour of defendants Nos. 2 and 4 were invalid on the ground that no sanction was obtained from the appropriate authorities in respect thereof. Consequently it decreed the plaintiff's suit. From that decision the defendants preferred an appeal in the District Court of Amravati. The appeal was heard by the Additional District Judge, Achalpur, to whom it came to be transferred in the course of distribution of business and the Additional District Judge, agreeing with the conclusions reached by the trial Court, dismissed the appeal. It is against that judgment that the defendants have come up in appeal.

(3.) I will now set out the facts giving rise to Second Appeals Nos. 622 of 1956 and 623 of 1956. The plaintiff in the two cases was the same, namely, Raje Vyankatrao son of Jagjiwanrao Deshmukh. The suit giving rise to Second Appeal No. 623 of 1956 was filed against Ratan son of Soba and related to Survey No. 17/1. The suit giving rise to Second Appeal No. 622 of 1956 was filed against Sitalprasad son of Siwanath and was in respect of Survey No. 23/7. The suits were for eviction, on the basis of title. In both the suits, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants had committed trespass in entering upon the respective lands in suit. The defence set up by Ratan, as also by Sitalprasad, was the same, namely that each of them was a protected lessee. The lease on which reliance was placed by the two defendants was based on oral agreement alleged to have been entered into in the year 1952 -53. The defendants also raised the contention that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide the issue relating to protected lease and issues Nos. 4 to 6 were accordingly framed which were common to both the suits. Both the Courts below came to the conclusion that the defendants failed to prove the oral lease set up on their behalf and consequently decreed the plaintiff's suit. It is against these judgments that, these two second appeals have been directed. It will at once appear that these appeals also raise the same question, namely, as to whether the civil Court had jurisdiction to decide the question of protected lease and as to whether it is necessary for the civil Court to refer the issues to the Revenue Officer.