LAWS(BOM)-1968-10-4

MADHAO NARAYAN Vs. RAGHO NILOO

Decided On October 08, 1968
MADHAO NARAYAN Appellant
V/S
RAGHO NILOO Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this application under Article 227 of the Constitution is Madhao Narayan Sarmukkadam, who is the tenure-holder of field survey No. 15/2, area 12 acres 1 guntha, situate at village Muchi, tahsil Ward, District Yeotmal. The landholder filed an application on 15-10-1963 for possession of survey No. 15/2 on the ground that the respondent No. 1 Ragho who was a tenant of this field had sublet it to respondent No, 2 Karnu. The petitioner gave a notice on 16-8-1962 charging Ragho that he was not cultivating the held though ho was his tenant and that he had sublet the field to another person. A second notice was also given on 18-4-1963 charging Ragho with the same default. This was followed by an application dated 15-3-1963 to which both Ragho and Karnu were impleaded as parties. This application is registered in the Court of the Naib Tahsildar as Revenue Case No. 2/59 (10-B) of 1963-64. In these proceedings, both Ragho and Karnu filed a joint statement and their joint defence was that that field and survey Nos. 18 and 20 belonged to one Radhabai, and they were obtained by the petitioner as a result of partition and therefore the petitioner had no right. Their further case on merits was that Ragho never cultivated survey No. 15/2 and that it has been let out to Karnu by the mother of the petitioner since 1952-53. Thus, the second respondent Kamu claimed to be a direct tenant of the field and admitted to be in cultivating possession in his own right and not under Ragho.

(2.) THE Tenancy Naib-Tahsildar, on a consideration of all the material on record, held that Ragho was the tenant of survey No. 15/2 and that he had sublet it to Karnu. Inasmuch as subletting was proved, the Naib Tahsildar ordered that the petitioner was entitled to possession of the entire area.

(3.) THIS order was challenged in appeal both by Karnu and Ragho. The appellate authority took a contrary view, reversed the order of the Naib-Tahsildar and rejected the application of the petitioner for possession.