BHIVA GANGARAM LANDGE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this Petition, the order dated 2/02/1985 passed by the Addl. Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, is challenged by the petitioners.

(2.) THE present petition is filed by the original defendants. The respondents 3, 4 and 5/ original plaintiffs 1 to 3 (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiffs") instituted Regular Civil Suit No. : 112/1977 against the present petitioners/ original defendants (hereinafter referred to as "the defendants") for the relief of declarations that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land and the defendants be restrained permanently from obstructing their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit land. It is contended by the plaintiffs that Gangaram, the father of the plaintiffs and defendant no. 1, was in possession of land Survey No. 274 admeasuring 20a, 20g and 275 18 A 33g situated at village Neknoor Tq. and Dist. Beed, (hereinafter referred to as "suit land"), as tenant of the suit lands and has cultivated the land as tenant till his death. It is contended that one Chand pasha s/o Ziauddin was the original Inamdar and after Gangaram's death, the suit land was cultivated by his son Gangaram. The suit land were governed by the provisions of Hyderabad Abolition of Inams and Cash grants Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). As defendant No. 1 was elder member of the family, the occupancy rights in respect of the suit land came to be granted in his favour. It is contended by the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs and defendants are members of Hindu joint family and they are cultivating the suit lands jointly according to their respective shares. All the plaintiffs has 3/4 share in the suit land and defendants had 1/4 share. It is contended that granting of occupancy right of the land was, in fact, in favour of the defendant no. l as Karta of joint family and, as such the land was declared in his name as Karta of the joint family. They are all cultivating the lands jointly. It is contended that the occupancy price was paid out of joint family funds as the declaration was made in the name of defendant no. l his name came to be recorded in the revenue record in respect of suit lands. It is contended that the plaintiffs and defendant no. l jointly cultivated the suit land as per their share upto 2/04/1977 as the defendants obstructed their possession over the suit land. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed the above referred suit on 10/04/1977.

(3.) ON receipt of the summons of the suit, the defendants 1 to 3 filed their written statement denying all adverse contentions that are raised by the plaintiffs. The defendants denied that Gangaram, their father was never a tenant of the suit land. On the contrary, it is contended that the defendant no. 1 is in exclusive possession and cultivating the land as a tenant since beginning. It is accepted that the occupancy right of the suit land has been granted in favour of the defendant no. l alone and not as the Karta or member of the joint Hindu family. It is denied that plaintiffs and defendants were the members of the Hindu joint family. It is denied that the plaintiffs jointly cultivated the suit lands. It is contended that during the life time of Gangaram, his sons i. e. the plaintiffs and defendants were residing separately and they are separated in mess. It is contended that all sons of Gangaram having different land and they are cultivating the lands separately. It is contended that defendant no. 1 is exclusively and independently obtained the suit land on lease from inamdar, some fifty years back. The plaintiffs, never cultivated the suit land in any capacity nor they had right to or concern with the same. It is contended that even Gangaram had no right or concern with the suit land. It is contended that defendant no. l was never the Karta of Joint family and the declaration of occupancy/ownership of the suit land was not made as a Karta of the joint family. It is contended that the declaration made in favour of defendant no. l is not in the capacity of Karta of joint family nor the joint family has concern with the land. It is contended that defendant no. l alone in exclusive possession and cultivation of the suit land as a tenant when the Act came in force. It is contended that the occupancy rights of the suit lands were granted in favour of the defendant no. 1 only. He contended that it is the defendant no. l who alone paid the entire occupancy price of the suit land out of his own income. The plaintiffs have no concern whatsoever with the suit land. They are not in possession of the suit land as contended by them. With these contentions, they prayed for dismissal of the suit.