LAHANU SHRIPATI MUKE Vs. SOPANA CHANGDEO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Application is directed against the order of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Vaijapur, dated 12th December, 1980 rejecting the plaintiff's application for amendment of issues and for addition of two more issues as urged by him by his application, Exh. No. 37, and it arises out of the following facts.

(2.) At the outset, it may be stated that although in the application in the trial Court, request was made for addition of two more issues, request for second proposed additional issue is not pressed before me and the only request that is pressed is regarding the framing of additional Issue No. 1 as proposed in Exh. No. 37 and it is regarding the plaintiff's tenancy of the disputed land.

(3.) The dispute relates to the western portion of 3 acres 10 gunthas of Gat No. 24 situated at village Hingoni, Taluka Vaijapur, District Aurangabad. According to the averments made in paragraph 3 of the plaint, which is filed on 7th August, 1976, the plaintiff averred that some twelve years back, Ganpat inducted him in this portion as a tenant on bated contract and upto ten years, he was in possession as a tenant and he paid batai share regularly to the original owner. The plaintiff alleged further that on 3-6-1976, Ganpat agreed to sell this land to him for an amount of Rs. 12,000 after receiving Rs. 5,639 from him as earnest money, and in furtherance of this agreement, Ganpat further accepted Rs. 6,370 from him on 8-7-1977. The plaintiff further alleged that he was in possession first of all as a tenant and subsequently in pursuance of the contract to purchase. The plaintiff further alleged that the said Ganpat filed an application in the Court of the Tahsildar, Vaijapur, under section 38-A of the Hyderabad Tenany and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"), on 8-7-1977 for permission to sell the land to the plaintiff. Again n paragraph 6 of the plaint, the plaintiff averred that he was in peaceful possession of the suit land for the last twelve to thirteen years. As the Defendant No. 1 started interfering with his possession, he filed this suit for perpetual injunction.