SHRAWANBAGAJI NADRE Vs. ARUN MANIKRAO KADAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision Petitioners before this Court are original defendants and Respondent is the original plaintiff. The suit relates to two lands, Survey Nos. 604/B and 604/C situated at village Girgaon, Tqluka Basmath, District Parbhani. The petitioners are admittedly the owners of these two lands. The Respondent-plaintiff claimed that he was a tenant of petitioners in respect of these lands and he filed Regular Civil Suit No. 128 of 1981 in the trial Court for perpetual injunction against the defendants contending that they are obstructing his possession. In this suit, he gave an application for temporary injunction. The application was resisted by the petitioner and after considering the material before him, the learned trial Judge dismissed the application for temporary injunction.

(2.) The present Respondent preferred Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 97 of 1981 in the District Court at Parbhani and the appeal was heard by the learned District Judge, Parbhani. The learned District Judge disagreed with the trial Court and he held that the plaintiff is entitled to temporary injunction and, therefore, he allowed the appeal and restrained the present petitioners from interfering with the possession of the Respondent plaintiff on certain conditions mentioned by him as below :

(3.) Shri V. K. Deshpande, appearing on behalf of the revision Petitioners, contended that the lower appellate Court was wrong in granting temporary injunction to the Respondent-plaintiff. He contended that the Respondent-plaintiff was claiming the status of a tenant and the tenancy was disputed. According to him, unless the tenancy Court adjudicates upon the tenancy right of the Respondent-plaintiff, Civil Court has no jurisdiction to grant any relief including that of a temporary injunction. For this purpose, he relied upon the decision of this Court in Pandurang Appa Patil v. Ananda Bhau Ulpe, Civil Revision Application No. 42 of 1974 decided on 28-4-1976, by Tulzapurkar, J. (as he then was). This decision is reported in xxv (1977) T. L. R. 29. This ruling, therefore, definitely supports the contention raised by Shri Deshpande and it goes to show that the person, who comes to the Civil Court on the ground of his tenancy, can succeed only if tenancy is held in his favour by the tenancy Court. In that ruling, an application was given to the trial Court to refer the issue about tenancy to the tenancy Court and the Civil Court rejected that application and hence the matter went to the High Court. As against this, Shri S. G. Deshmukh, appearing for the Respondent, reiied upon another unreponed decision of this Court in Hirkanbai Vishwanath Sontakke v. Digambar Govindrao Pande and others, Civil Revision Application No. 5-A of 1982 decided on 23rd February, 1982 by Kanade, J. sitting at Aurangabad. According to Shri Deshmukh, there is a conflict between these two decisions and, therefore, the matter deserves to be referred to a largar bench. On account of this submission, I went through both these rulings carefully and I find that there is no conflict whatsoever in these two rulings. Kanade, J., also accepted the position that in such cases references have got to be made to the tenancy Court about the tenancy rights. It appears that Shri Deshmukh wants to place reliance upon the following observations of Kanade, J., in paragraph 5 of the judgment in this case :