ASHALATA ANAND DABHOLKAR Vs. VRINDEVATI TUKARAM BHAIRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these petitions can be disposed of by a common Judgment. Writ Petition No. 5296 of 1991 challenges the order passed by the District court, Satara in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 38 of 1988 dated 14th November 1991, whereas Writ petition No. 1649 of 1996 challenges the decision of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated November 29, 1995. As the parties in both the proceedings are common and pertain to the same suit land, the petitions are being disposed of by this common order. The land in question in the present proceedings its agricultural land bearing Survey No. 507, Hissa No. 14 admeasuring 97 ares only, i. e. , 2 acres 17 gunthas, out of total 10 acres 19 gunthas. The said land was originally owned by Dinanath shantaram Dabholkar (hereinafter referred to as "the landlord" ). One Pundalik Gopal Bhere was cultivating Survey No. 507, Hissa No. 14, admeasuring 2 acres 25 gunthas and Survey No. 506, Hissa No. 6, admeasuring 1 acre 15 gunthas as tenant. The landlord filed Regular Civil Suit no. 30 of 1958 in the Civil Court at Vengurla against the tenant for permanent injunction relating to Survey No. 507, Hissa No. 14 in the year 1988. The land lord also simultaneously filed application in the Mamlatdars' Courts Act under section 70 (b) of the Bombay Tenancy and agricultural Lands Act for a negative declaration that Pundalk Gopal Bhere was not the tenant in respect of the suit land. That application was filed in the year 1959. During the inquiry of the said application, both the landlord and the tenant compromised the matter and filed purshis before the Mamlatdar. In the said compromise purshis, the landlord admitted that Mr. Pundalik bhere was the tenant in respect of the suit land survey No. 507, Hissa No. 14. In the same compromise purshis, it is also mentioned that trees standing in the said land will, however, continue to belong to the landlord Dinanath dabholkar. On the basis of the purshis filed by the parties, the proceedings under section 70 (b)of the Act were disposed of by the Mamlatdar. It appeasrs that in the suit filed by the landlord in the year 1958, reference was made to the tenancy authority and the same is, therefore, answered by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal on 17th August 1963 observing that defendant Mr. Pundalik Bhere was tenant in the land bearing Survey No. 506, hissa No. 6, admeasuring 1 acre 15 gunthas, and survey No. 507, Hissa No. 14, admeasuring 2 acres 25 gunthas. The authority also found that the trees on the suit lands were not naturally grown, for which reason the tenant had no concern with the same. After the reference was answered by the tenancy authority, the Civil Court at vengurla proceeded to dispose of the suit between the parties in terms of compromise purshis filed in Tenancy Case No. 87 of 1959 by decision dated 23rd September 1963. It has been noted that the said Pundalik Bhere was the protected tenant in the suit land and the landlord had right over the trees standing on the suit land. The orders in proceedings under section 70 (b) of the Act dated august 11, 1963, as well as of the Civil Court in regular Civil Suit No. 12 of 1958 dated september 23, 1963 have not been challenged by any party and the same were allowed to attain finality. On the basis of the said declaration, the Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Vengurla, initiated proceedings under section 32g of the act for determination of purchase price in respect of the suit land. By decision dated october 4, 1972, the authority proceeded to determine the purchase price and which purchase price was duly deposited by the tenant. As a consequence whereof, certificate under section 32m came to be issued in favour of the tenant. This decision was, however, challenged by one anand Vasant Dabholkar claiming to be successor in interest of Dinanath Dabholkar by way of appeal be ing Tenancy Appeal No. 1 of 1978 before injuriction should not be confirmed till the decision of the suit. Plaintiff to comply as per the provisions laid down in O. 39, r. 3, C. P. C. E. P. allowed. The said ad interim order was subsequently confirmed by the trial Court by decision dated december 5, 1988 till the disposal of the suit bearing R. C. S. No. 76 of 1980. In the meantime, however, the trial Court, on the basis of pleadings framed one of the following issue by order dated April 5,1988, which reads thus :

(2.) DURING the pendency of writ petition filed by the landlord, against the decision of the District Court, an application has been filed before this Court being C. A. No. 2398 of 1993 praying for certain reliefs. However, no orders have been passed oh the said application so far. Even the said application will now be disposed of by the present Judgment.

(3.) COUNSEL for the landlord, Mr. Rege, has assailed the decision of the tenancy authorities holding that the defendants were tenants in respect of the suit lands. He submits that the authorities below have not addressed themselves to the main issue as to whether the defendants were tenants in the whole of the suit property, which was the issue referred to the tenancy authority. He submits that the decisions in the earlier proceedings concluded between the original landlord will be of no avail. According to him, the said decisions cannot be looked into because the same was returned on the basis of compromise purshis and not after a proper inquiry as was necessary and required to be undertaken by the authorities. He further submits that the tenants have failed to produce any evidence on record to establish their claim of tenancy and the tenancy authority could not have proceeded to decide the issue on the basis of the documents which in turn do not establish the claim of tenancy of the defendants on the tillets' day. According to him, neither the tenancy authority was justified in deciding the matter in favour of the defendants, nor the Civil Court was right in relying on the earlier decisions so as to conclude the issue in favour of the defendants by dismissing the application for injunction preferred by the landlord. He submits that in any case because of the consent purshis filed, the landlords continued to be owners in respect of the standing mango trees on the suit land and for that reason, it was not open to the Civil court to dismiss the application of the landlord in its entirety.