BACHARBHAI NARABHAI Vs. MOHANLAL RANCHHODDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff filed suit No. 192 of 1948-49 on 28-4-1949 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Savli, for a decree for injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession. By a subsequent amendment the plaintiff converted the suit into a suit for possession on the allegation that he had been dispossessed by the defendant on 26-4-1949. The defendant contended that lie was the tenant of the plaintiff and that he had not surrendered possession to the plaintiff as alleged by the latter. The learned trial Judge held that the defendant had surrendered possession of the suit land as alleged by the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for possession. The learned trial Judge accordingly passed a decree for possession in favour of the plaintiff and for mesne profits from the date of possession till recovery to be ascertained under Order 20, Rule 12, C. P. C.

(2.) AGAINST the decree an appeal was pre- ferred to the District Court at Baroda; and in appeal the learned Assistant Judge confirmed the decree passed by the trial Court. The defendant has come to this Court in second appeal.

(3.) IT was urged before me by Mr. Vakil on behalf of the defendant that the civil court had, no jurisdiction to decide the suit, once the defendant contended that he was a tenant in respect of the agricultural land, and the learned trial Judge should have given an opportunity to the defendant to obtain a declaration from the Mamlatdar on the plea raised by him under Section 70, Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. In my view there is no substance in that contention. The suit was filed in April 1949 and at that time the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act of 1948 was not made applicable to the area in which the land in dispute is situate. It is conceded before me that the Act was made applicable to the area in which the land in question is situate on 30-7-1949.