APPA GANPAT SATHE Vs. K B WASSOODEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition an order passed by the Revenue Tribunal is challenged on the ground that the order is vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record.

(2.) THE property in question, which are lands bearing survey Nos. 189, 190 and 200 situate at Man, taluka Mulshi, District Poona, belonged to one Chitaman vasudeo Bhat, and the opponent Narayan Hari Bharane was his protected tenant. An agreement of sale dated December 17, 1948, was entered into between Bhat and the petitioners. The consideration was Rs. 5,999, and Rs. 1,001 were paid by the petitioners to Bhat on the date when the agreement of sale was executed. In pursuance of this agreement a registered sale-deed was passed by Bhat in favour of the petitioners on 20-4-1949. The petitioners thereafter served the opponent Bharane with one year's notice on 30-3-1950; and when the period of notice expired, they took out proceeedings before the Mamlatdar for possession of the property. The Mamlatdar ordered the possession of the property to be handed over to the petitioners. An appeal was preferred to the Collector at Poona, who reversed the decision of the Mamlatdar. In revision the Revenue Tribunal upheld the decision of the Collector.

(3.) THE short point that arises for consideration in this application is whether the sale which was effected on 20-4-1949, after the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 67 of 1948, came into force was saved by reason of the fact that the agreement of sale was executed on December 17, 1948, prior to the coming into force of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act.