PREMPRAKASH SURAJMAL Vs. MAHARASHRRA REVENUE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a minor and tenure-holder of survey No. 17/1 area 14 acres and 30 gunthas, land-revenue Rs. 38-50 of village Rasulpur, in taluq and District Amravati. Even in these proceedings, he is represented by his natural and legal guardian Surajmal who is his father. On 26-4-1960 an application was made on behalf of Shri Premprakash for restoration of the field from the opponent Maroti on the ground that he needed the land bona fide for his own cultivation. Prior to that a notice under Section 38 was given according to law. This field and some other field as detailed in a copy of the family partition deed of 1950 was owned by the petitioner.

(2.) THE opponents Maroti and shamrao resisted the application principally on the ground that Premprakash was not the owner of the family property but the joint family continued to be in possession and the owner was Surajmal, the father of the petitioner. This was really the sole basis of the defence in resisting the application. The petitioner proved the partition by examining his brother Nathmal. On behalf of the opponents, Maroti entered the witness box. During cross-examination of Nathmal, he was asked about a sale transaction in respect of survey No. 20 belonging to the petitioner. In reply to this question, the witness Nathmal stated that survey No. 20 was sold by their father in 1960-61 for Rs. 1500. He also stated that he did not know whether the father had taken permission for sale of the field. Before sale, the field was in personal cultivation at home and that it yielded an income of Rs. 200 to 300 after deducting expenses.

(3.) THE Naib Tahsildar held that the partition was a sham transaction and there was no compelling necessity for the petitioner to cultivate the land personally. On these findings, the application was rejected.