VISHNUPANT ALIAS DHONDOPANT WAMANRAO JAMKAR Vs. MAHADEV SANTUKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Naik A. B. , J. 1. The present proceedings arise out of an application filed by the petitioner under Section 28 read with Sub-section (2) of Section 19 and Section 32 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter "the Act" for short).

(2.) The petitioner, by moving the Additional Tahsildar, Degloor, by that application sought recovery of possession from the respondents herein, of land Survey No. 29, admeasuring 20 A : 2 G: to the extent of 10 A 6 G situated at village Jamb (BK). Tq, Mulched District. Nanded (hereinafter "suit land" for short). The petitioner, inter alia, contended that he is the owner of the suit land; he acquired ownership of the suit land on the basis of Civil Court decree. Though Survey No. 29 admeasuring 20 A, but this proceedings relate to possession of 10 A 6 g only. The rest of the land out of Survey No. 29 came to be declared in favour of one Santuka, the predecessor of the respondent under section 38-E of the Act, hence this proceedings are confined only to the extent of 10-A 6 G of the suit land. It is the contention of the petitioner that respondents are heirs and legal representatives of deceased Santuka. According to the petitioner, Santuka, claimed that he was the protected tenant of the land. It is contended by the petitioner that as he became owner on the basis of compromise decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, S. D. , Nanded in R. C. R No. 3/1960 and the suit land fell to his share and as such he became owner of the property, hence it was incumbent on Santuka to pay rent of the suit land to him but he failed to pay rent, the petitioner approached the tahsildar by filing application.

(3.) It is contended by the petitioner that inspite of service of notice of termination of tenancy and demanding rent, the tenant/respondents did not bother to pay the rent. Therefore, he contended that he is entitled to possession of suit land as the respondents without any cause, have failed to pay the rent. It is contended that the petitioner has filed S. C. S No. 43/1966 against the defendant No. 3-Late santuka was party to the suit and the respondents being his heirs and successors, the decree/findings recorded in that suit, is binding on them.