GITABAI Vs. DAYARAM SHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a landlord's petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. Dayaram, respondent No. 1, filed an application on 21-5-1963 before the Agricultural Lands Tribunal requesting that he should be declared a tenure-holder and purchaser of field No. 11, area 18 acres 27, gunthas of mouza Nund-dhan, in Amravati district. He impleaded the respondent No. 2 Sukhadeo as a non-applicant to this application. Dayaram claimed that he had been holding the land as a tenant from before 1958-59, that he had acquired the rights of a tenant and was entitled to purchase the land and that he had made an offer of purchase by a notice on 5-12-1962. Along with the application, Dayaram filed a certified copy of the latest entry of the record-of-rights showing Sukhdeo as an occupant in column 9 and Dayaram as a protected lessee from 1952-53 to 1956-57, in column 11 of that document. It appears Sukhadeo preferred to remain absent but the present petitioner Gitabai filed an application for being impleaded as an additional party. The petitioner claimed that the field in dispute belonged to her, that it came to her from her mother as a legal heir and that the field had come to her mother by partition on 24-5-1954 of the family property. She also stated that the field was gifted to her by her brother Sukhdeo under a registered gift deed dated 19-7-1954. Thus, as she was the owner of the field, she was a necessary party to this case. Dayaram agreed to implead the petitioner without prejudice to his rights, so that the petitioner may take part in the proceedings. On being impleaded, the petitioner filed a detailed written statement. In this written statement she disclosed that her mother Janibai became a widow on the death of Balkisan in 1930, that Sukhdeo, respondent No. 2, was adopted as a son after the death of Balkisan, that the field was let out by Janibai to Dayaram in 1951-52 for one year and that he cultivated the field for the years 1951-52 and 1952-53. According to the petitioner, thereafter Dayaram relinquished possession of the field and that Janibai let out the field to Dayaram's brother Uttam for the year 1953-54 for cultivation. She also alleged that on 1-4-1953 he executed a batai palra in the name of Janibai and Janibai banded over possession of the field to him. She claimed that Dayaram did not acquire the rights of a protected lessee because the land was let out to him by Janibai who was a widow and a person under disability. It was further disclosed that Janibai died on 30-6-1954 leaving the petitioner as the only daughter. She also claimed that the estate of Janibai was stridhan property and the petitioner succeeded to it as her daughter. She also alleged that Janibai had made a will. She claimed that she had never let out the field to Dayaram and Dayaram's possession over the field was unauthorised.

(2.) ALL these adverse allegations were repudiated in the further statement filed by Dayaram. He specifically repudiated the alleged oral partition of February 1951 between Sukhdeo and Janibai, He also denied the partition of 1954. He claimed that he had acquired the status of a protected lessee because he had obtained the field from Sukhdeo.

(3.) DAYARAM filed a copy of an order in a revenue case before the Sub-Divisional Officer determining the rent of the field at Rs. 160 on 5-2-1955. Sukhdeo was the non-applicant in these proceedings. He also filed copies of crop statements for the years 1952-53 and 1953-54 in both of which Dayaram alone was shown as cultivating the land on batai, Dayaram also filed crop statements showing his cultivation in the years 1961-62, 1962-63 and 1963-64 in which crop statements Sukhdeo continued to be shown as the occupant. Dayaram produced money order coupons showing acknowledgment of receipt of lease money by Sukhdeo on 7-6-1958, 19-3-1959, 5-3-1960, 6-3-1961 and 14-3-1962. He filed two more money order receipts showing refusal of money order by Sukhdeo in 1954. In addition, Dayaram filed receipts for payment of land revenue from 1959-60 to 1963-64.