ANIL Vs. GOVIND MADHAO DESHPANDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Sohoni, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Gandhi, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2. Mr. Sonone, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 is absent.

(2.) The respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed a suit bearing R.C.S. No.379/2011 (Govind Madhao Deshapnde & Anr. Vs. Anil Prabhakar Patil & Anr.) for possession, injunction and mesne profits, claiming that they were the owners of property at Survey No.31/1, admeasuring 2 Acres 10 Gunthas and since the defendants / applicants were encroachers, the possession was liable to be delivered to them. The applicants / defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed an application on the basis of which a preliminary issue came to be framed, as to whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit. This was on the basis that the applicants / defendant Nos.1 and 2 claimed to have been declared as owners of the said property on account of their predecessors in title being the tenants of the same. The learned trial Court by the impugned order rendered a finding that the suit was maintainable on the finding as recorded in para Nos.10 and 11 of the impugned order that the application of the original tenant Murlidhar for ownership was dismissed on the ground that suit property was claimed in municipal limits and purchase price cannot be fixed and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal is second decision did not admit status of the defendants / applicants as tenant and therefore, the suit was maintainable.

(3.) Mr. Sohoni, learned counsel for the applicants / defendant Nos. 1 and 2 submits that the predecessor of the applicants were already declared as tenants of the land in question, however, only the question of determination of purchase price came into question on account of the land falling within the municipal area. He further submits, that several attempts made by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 original plaintiff by invoking Sec. 36 and Sec. 120 of the Bombay Tenancy Act, had failed in which also the status of the predecessors of the applicants as that of tenants of the land in question was recognized. He submits that the findings rendered by the learned trial Court is clearly incorrect and is required to be quashed and set aide and preliminary issue answered in the affirmative.