BHAILALBHAI TULSIDAS PATEL Vs. SHANKERBHAI KILABHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant is the owner of five lands situate in a village, called Sarsa in the Anand Taluka of the Kaira District. Opponent No. 1 to the petition was a tenant of these lands and it is the applicant's case that opponent No. 1 sub-let these lands to opponent No. 2 sometime in 1948-49. It is also the applicant's case that he came to know of the sub-letting sometime in November, 1955 and so he gave a notice to opponent No. 1 terminating the tenancy. He then filed this application on the 9th May, 1956 to obtain possession from opponents Nos. 1 and 2. Opponent No. I, the tenant, admitted the claim but stated that he and opponent No. 2 were jointly cultivating the lands and giving a crop share to the applicant also jointly. The claim of the applicant was resisted by opponent No. 2.

(2.) UPON the evidence adduced before him, the Mamlatdar held that the suit brought by the applicant was barred by time and accordingly the suit came to be dismissed. From the order of dismissal an appeal was filed before the Prant Officer, Anand, and the learned Prant Officer held that the lands were leased out jointly to opponents Nos. 1 and 2 and also that the applicant's suit was barred by time. From that order the applicant went in revision before the Bombay Revenue Tribunal and a Bench of that Tribunal dismissed the application, holding that the applicant's suit was barred by limitation. It is the correctness of this order which has been challenged upon this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.

(3.) BEFORE dealing with the question of limitation, it is necessary to point out that the Bombay Revenue Tribunal did not consider the finding recorded by the Prant Officer to the effect that the lands were jointly given to opponents Nos. 1 and 2. The Bombay Revenue Tribunal proceeded upon the footing that they preferred to examine the case of the applicant from the point of view from which he had placed it before the Mamlatdar, namely, that there was sub-letting by opponent No. 1 in favour of opponent No. 2 and that the sole question for decision was one of limitation.