MELA KABHAI Vs. MOTIBHAI KAHANDAS PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner claims to be a tenant of an agricultural land at Amla, a village in the territory of the old Baroda State. The land belonged originally to one Mohansingh. On May 12, 1932, Mohansingh passed a possessory mortgage of this land in favour of one Becharbhai Ranchhodbhai. The mortgage was to be redeemed after 15 years. On November 27, 1942, Mohansingh sold the equity of redemption of the land to the present opponent No. 1, Motibhai. Motibhai redeemed the mortgage on March 16, 1956, and thus became the full owner of the land. Now, the father of the petitioner was an old tenant of this land. On the father's death in 1951 the petitioner continued to cultivate the land as a tenant. In 1952, however, the name of opponent No. 2, Gordhandas, was shown in the Record of Rights as a tenant. It appears that this entry was false, and that opponent No. 2 Gordhandas was merely a cook of opponent No. 1. In 1956 the petitioner filed an application before the Mamlatdar against opponents Nos. 1 and 2, claiming, firstly, a declaration that he was a protected tenant under the Tenancy Act, secondly, an injunction restraining opponents Nos. 1 and 2 from disturbing his possession of the land, and thirdly, a declaration that the purchase of the equity of redemption by opponent No. 1 was contrary to law and invalid.

(2.) THE Mamlatdar held that the petitioner, and not opponent No. 2, was the tenant of the land in dispute, and granted him a declaration that he was the tenant, and also ordered opponent No. 1 to refrain from disturbing the petitioner's possession. On appeal filed by opponent No. 1, the Prant Officer confirmed the order of the Mamlatdar. Opponent No. 1 went in revision to the Bombay Revenue Tribunal, and the Tribunal set aside the orders of the Mamlatdar and the Prant Officer and dismissed the original application filed by the petitioner. Against this decision of the Revenue Tribunal the petitioner has filed this Special Civil Application.

(3.) THE Revenue Tribunal has, with respect, correctly appreciated this aspect of the case. It held that the crucial question was whether the family, of the petitioner was a tenant of the mortgagor or whether it was introduced on the land as a tenant by the mortgagee in possession. On this point the Revenue Tribunal has observed that according to the Mamlatdar the petitioner was a tenant of the mortgagor, and that this finding was apparently confirmed by the Prant Officer. The Tribunal, however, held that this finding was not supported by any legal evidence, and, therefore, it set aside the orders of the Mamlatdar and the Prant Officer and dismissed the original application. The only evidence about the petitioner being the tenant of the mortgagor was contained in a statement made by the petitioner before the Talati. It appears that the Mamlatdar had sent the tenant's application to the Talati for investigation, and the Talati had taken down a statement of the petitioner on which reliance was placed by the Mamlatdar. The Revenue Tribunal held that this statement could not be regarded as evidence. The Tribunal also held that even if this statement were regarded as evidence, the petitioner could not have any personal knowledge about the tenancy before the possessory mortgage, and that his statement could not be relied upon for showing that his family was a tenant on the land from before the mortgage.