BALU IBRAHIM MULANI Vs. MAHADEV PANDURANG MAHADIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal along with the cross -objections can be disposed of by common judgment. The appeal arises out of a suit filed by the present appellants for the recovery of the amount of Rs. 12,000 and interest thereon on the basis that the defendants, who were the purchasers of the agricultural lands in suit, were unauthorisedly in occupation and the plaintiffs being the tenants were entitled to the mesne profits or damages from the defendants.

(2.) THE trial Court held that such a suit was not tenable nor has the civil Court jurisdiction to award such mesne profits. Holding so, the suit is dismissed.

(3.) IT is indeed difficult to find force in this submission. As far as the ratio of the Full Bench case, i.e. the decision in Vasant Hariba v. Jagannath (supra) is concerned, that ratio is to be gathered in the context of the controversy and is of a limited application. The judgment laid down that notwithstanding the transfer in favour of the third person of the land resumed by the landlord, the entitlement of the tenant under Section 37 of the Act to the restoration of possession continues and will have to be worked out by restoring the possession to the tenant. A voluntary transfer by such a landlord who resumed the land for personal cultivation was itself explicit evidence of the breach of the statutory conditions. Once the breach was so made out, restoration of possession had to follow notwithstanding that the transferee was inducted on the land. The decision is not an authority, therefore, for the proposition that the transferee is liable to pay the compensation in a civil action. The present is the case of that kind where the suit is filed by the tenant who has been restored possession under Section 37(1) of the Act for recovery of compensation or mesne profits from the transferee.