MAHADU DIPA KOLI Vs. SHAHAJADHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A very narrow, but very interesting question is raised by Mr. Desai in this appeal concerning the provisions of section 85 and 85-A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity called the said Act) read with section 32-G of the said Act.

(2.) The facts are very simple. The plaintiff, who is the appellant before me (since deceased, through his legal representatives), was admittedly the tenant in respect of the land which is the subject matter of this appeal. In fact, he was a tenant of a piece of land of which suit land formed a part. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 were owners of this piece of land. Without entering into the other part of this litigations, all that needs to be stated herein is that respondent Nos. 1 to 4 had made an application to the Tenancy Court for recovery of possession of the land lease by them to the plaintiff under section 32 read with section 29 of the said Act on the ground of their personal bona fide requirement. The litigation had reached the precincts of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 492 of 1960. This Court passed an order on 24th August, 1960 to the effect that respondent Nos. 1 to 4 were entitled to recover possession from the appellant plaintiff in respect of the half portion of that parcel of land. The result was that the appellant plaintiff continued to be tenant in respect of the remaining half portion as from the said date i.e. 24th August, 1960 and by virtue of and subject to the provisions of the said Act he would be deemed to have become owner of the said half portion of the land with effect from 24th August, 1968. It is this half portion of the said land which is the subject matter of the instant suit out of which this appeal arises. The grievance of the plaintiff is that after the said date, i.e. 24th August, 1960, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 persuaded the plaintiff to surrender even the suit land to them, i.e. the remaining portion of the land allowed to be retained by him to respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and they recovered the possession of the suit land from him on 10th April, 1961. According to the appellant-plaintiff the surrender is bad and illegal on the face of it because on that date he had become deemed purchaser of the land with effect from the postponed date viz. 24th August, 1960. Hence, he filed the instant suit in the Civil Court for a declaration that the said surrender taken from him by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 was bad and illegal because no such surrender can be countenanced either under the said Act or under the general law. It is significant that the suit was filed practically on the last date of the limitation. It may be mentioned here that after taking the surrender and possession from the appellant-plaintiff, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 sold the suit land to the present respondent No. 5 and this is the reason why present respondent No. 5 was impleaded by the plaintiff as defendant No. 5 in the suit in which landlord were impleaded defendant Nos. 1 to 4.

(3.) In the suit the respondents filed written statement and contended, inter alia, that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. The trial Court framed a preliminary issue as to whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit and to give necessary relief as prayed for by the plaintiff. The Court recorded the finding against the plaintiff on that issue holding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. The suit is, therefore, dismissed by the trial Court and, hence the appeal.