NATHU AND ANOTHER Vs. KAMLABAI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petitioners were impleaded as original non-applicants Nos. 2 and 3 in proceedings initially started by respondent Godubai, since deceased, now represented by her legal representative one Kamalabai. To those proceedings, which sought a negative declaration against the present petitioners that they were not the tenants of Survey No. 69/1, area 2.37 acres of mouza Nimba by invoking the provisions of section 100(2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the tenancy Act), the respondent No. 2 Janardan was impleaded as non-applicant No. 1 on the basis that he had no title or interest in the said land in any capacity whatsoever. Originally, the property belonged to Laxmibai the mother of the applicant since deceased by the year 1942. Laxmibai had two daughters, i.e. the applicant Godubai and said Kamalabai, who became the owners and as such title-holders of the said survey number. Certain allegations are to be found in the application against non-applicant Janardan in that he was having all amoral relations and was also acting in fraud. It was further the specific case that non-applicants Nos. 2 and 3 were not tenants of the applicant on the said property, though they claimed to be the protected lessees. It was pleaded that none of the non-applicants could be recognised as the tenants. It was further averred that their present possession was unlawful. On this basis the applicant prayed for a declaration against all the non-applicants and particularly non-applicants Nos. 2 and 3, i.e. the present petitioners. Along with this application the applicant produced certified extracts of the record of rights with respect to the Survey number in question, i.e. exhibited as A-4, and it shows that as far as revenue records are concerned the applicant was admittedly the tenure-holder or landlady along with her sister one Kamalabai.

(2.) The non-applicant No. 1 Janardan filed a written statement denying the title of the applicant Godubai and further stating that he was the putative father of the applicant and her sister Kamalabai. He further averred that non-applicant No. 2 only was the tenant of the said field. He asserted that he himself was the owner of the field and further pleaded that he was in exclusive possession thereof for the last 40 years. He, however, admitted that the suit field was not leased out to either of the non-applicants, i.e. non-applicants Nos. 1 to 3. Thus from the plea of the non-applicant No. 1 he raised a defence on the footing of his own title and ownership. Non-applicant Nathu, i.e. the present petitioner No. 1 only filed written statement. Other non-applicant has not filed any statement. By that statement, Nathu denied the title of applicant Godubai and her claim that the property originally belonged to her mother Laxmibai. He tried to assert that his lease was through non-applicant No. 1 and further stated that the said non-applicant No. 1, i.e. Janardan, is in possession of the property as the owner thereof.

(3.) By these pleading eminently matter arose as to the respective claims by Nathu and Janardan as to the lease in favour of the former by the latter and further it contained implicit admission that none of them had any relationship under a tenancy claim as far as applicant was concerned. In addition they sought to deny the title of the applicant herself and asserted the same in favour of Janardan. It is patent and clear that record of right maintained under the provisions of the concerned Land Revenue Code does not in any way support the plea in defence.