SAHEBRAO ANNA RITPURE Vs. DATTATRAYA KRISHNAJEE PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Application raises a somewhat ticklish point under the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. Respondent No 1, who is hereinafter described as the plaintiff, filed a suit in ejectment against the petitioner, who is hereinafter described as defendant No. 2, in respect of survey No. 292/D and No. 293/D at village Mangrul, Taluka Kallam. The plaintiff contended that while he was enjoying' the land as owner, the husband of defendant No. 1, Sahebrao, forcibly dispossessed him. According to him the date of dispossession is March 15, 1950. It is common ground that Sahebrao died on September 19, 1950, leaving his widow as the only heir. The plaintiff alleges that defendant No, 2, in collusion with defendant No. 1, entered into possession of the land in suit. The plaintiff has, therefore, claimed possession and mesne profits from both the defendants.

(2.) DEFENDANT No. 1 appeared and admitted the plaintiff's claim. Defendant No. 2 contended that the land in dispute was gifted to Sahebrao by Krishnaji on the ground that Sahebrao happened to be an illegitimate son of Krishnaji. According to defendant No. 2, he started cultivating the laud as tenant of defendant No. 1 since 1955. Defendant No. 2 alleged that defendant No. 1 entered into a deed agreeing to sell the land for a sum of Rs. 2,500. A deed of agreement was executed and Rs. 2,000 were paid under the agreement. The remaining amount was stipulated to be paid at the time of the execution of the sale -deed. Since defendant No. 1 did not fulfil the contract, he filed a suit for specific performance (Suit No. 24 of 1958) and on admission by defendant No. 1, the suit has also been decreed. Defendant No. 1 did not execute the sale -deed in pursuance of the decree for specific performance. Therefore defendant No. 1 applied to the Agricultural Lands Tribunal under Section 38(5). The Tribunal determined the price and defendant No. 2 deposited the amount before the Tribunal. It appears that after the written statement, a certificate was issued under Section 38(6) of the Hyderabad Tenancy Act, Before the framing of the issues defendant No. 2 tendered the certificate in evidence. The plaintiff objected to the admissibility of the document. The trial Court held that the document required registration under Section 17(7) and inasmuch as it has not been registered it is not admissible under Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act. It is against that decision that defendant No1. 2 has come up in revision. The only point for consideration is whether the certificate is admissible hi evidence or not.

(3.) SECTION 37 also relates to another category of deemed tenant and provides that every person who at the commencement of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, holds as tenant any land in respect of which he is not deemed to be protected tenant under this Act, shall be deemed to be a protected tenant if the total area of the land owned by the landholder including the land under the cultivation of his tenants is more than three times the area of a family holding. It is not disputed that defendant No. 2 is not a protected tenant either within the meaning of Section 34, 37 or 37A. Defendant No. 1 has himself admitted that defendant No. 2 was his tenant. It is thus clear that defendant No. 2 is an ordinary tenant as distinguished from a protected tenant.