SAHADEO NAMDEO MAHADIK Vs. PARVATIBAI MAHADEO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having regard to the nature of the dispute, it becomes necessary to determine the status of the parties by applying Order XXII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court is required to decide who succeeds respondent No.1 Parvatibai, in whose favour the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal delivered its judgment holding that she was the wife of tenant Mahadeo. The Tribunal further held that Mahadeo was in possession of the disputed land as a tenant.

(2.) The facts relevant for deciding the present civil application may be stated thus. In proceedings arising under Sec. 32-G of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, the Tribunal, by judgment and order dtd. 21/9/2017, set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Mumbai, as well as the appellate authority, which had accepted the petitioners' predecessor in title as a tenant on 1/4/1957. However, by its judgment dtd. 21/9/2012, the Tribunal declared Mahadeo, the predecessor in title of Parvatibai, to be the tenant as on 1/4/1957 and accordingly directed issuance of a certificate under Sec. 32-G of the said Act in favour of Parvatibai.

(3.) The petitioners, claiming to be heirs of Sahdeo, instituted the present writ petition challenging the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. During pendency of the writ petition, Parvatibai, respondent No.1, expired on 11/3/2016. The petitioners therefore filed the present civil application seeking to bring themselves on record as legal representatives of Parvatibai. According to the petitioners, Parvatibai had inherited the property of her husband Mahadeo. They contend that succession is governed by Sec. 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and that in the absence of heirs mentioned in clause (1) of Sec. 15, namely son, daughter and husband, the heirs specified in clause (2) would take precedence over the personal heirs of Parvatibai.