BALIRAM MARUTI SATVEKAR Vs. DADU GOVIND TIPUGADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arises out of a reference under Section 85-A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Tenancy Act") by which the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kagal, referred the following two issues to the Tahsildar, Kagal :

(2.) A suit for injunction restraining the present petitioner and one Dattu Govind Tipugade, his vendor who is now dead, has been filed by the present respondent No. 1 alleging that he had been cultivating the field bearing survey No. 46/1 of village Kardyal as a tenant and the present petitioner (original Defendant No. 2) has no connection whatsoever but that he is interfering with the possession of respondent No. 1 on the ground that he has purchased the field. Now, admittedly the dispute relates to what is now survey No. 46/1 which originally belonged to one Sint. Ushadevi Khot The said owner sold the entire survey number admeasuring three acres twelve gunthas to respondent No. 2 Dattu, who was the brother of the plaintiff, Dadu Dattu had given Advocate's notice on 29th November, 1956. An application for possession under Seccion 29 of the Tenancy Act filed on behalf of Dattu on 23rd March, 1957 was however, withdrawn on 27th June, 1951 and the reason for this withdrawal is not available on record.

(3.) Sometime in the year 1972 Dattu, defendant No. 1 sold the said field tto the present petitioner Baliram by a registered sale deed. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff on 6th September, 1972. In the written state- ment field before the trial Court, Dattu had taken the stand that he had been owner of the filed from the date of his purchase and that Dadu had at no time been in possession. Now, it appears that the moment the plaintiff claimed the rights of tenancy the two issues reproduced above came to be referred to the Tahsildar.