WAMAN MAHADEV GADGIL Vs. PANDU GOVIND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs-appellants sued for an injunction restraining defendants Nos. 1 to 3 from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the suit land and, in the alternative, for possession, damages and mesne profits if the said defendants were found to be in possession. THEir case was that the land in suit, viz. fifteen gunthas out of survey No. 23, falni No. 3, of village Kondhe, District Ratnagiri, was dhara land of the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 4 and 5, that this land was partly in the vahivat of the plaintiffs and partly in that of their tenants and that defendants Nos. 1 to 3, about August 17, 1938, obstructed them in their enjoyment of the said land and erected bandhs thereon. THE defence of defendants Nos. 1 to 3 was that the suit land, which stood in the plaintiff's khata, was a dhara holding of which they were permanent tenants since times immemorial, that they had been paying a fixed rent therefor and were in actual enjoyment thereof, that they made the bandhs to prevent soil erosion and that they also raised trees thereon.

(2.) THE trial Court found that the plaintiffs had proved their title but that defendants Nos. 1 to 3 were permanent tenants on the land. Accordingly, it dismissed the suit. It negatived the plaintiffs' contention that it was an occupancy tenancy and not a dhara holding, as the plaintiffs in their plaint admitted that it was their dhara land and as an extract from the bot-khat of 1895, exhibit 33, stated that the khot had conferred dhara rights on the khatedar, who was the plaintiffs' ancestor. THE trial Court also held that exhibit 60 showed the defendants as permanent tenants, the possession having all along been with them "since long before human memory can go. " THE appeal by plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 was dismissed by the District Judge.

(3.) THERE seems, therefore, no difficulty in holding that the Gadgils were originally permanent tenants and then made dharekaris.