RADHAKISHAN SONI Vs. GANGARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is owner and landlord of Survey No. 15-B admeasuring 6 acres and 33 gunthas situated at village Pangara, Taluka Basmatnagar, District Parbhani, The petitioner filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 61 of 1967 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Basmatnagar for possession of the suit land. The respondent raised a dispute of tenancy in his written statement and, therefore, a reference was made under section 99-A read with section 8 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act by the Civil Court to the Revenue Authority to decide as to whether the respondent was tenant of the disputed land. The petitioner contended in the suit that on July 19, 1955 the respondent deposited an amount of Rs. 3,000/- with the petitioner as sale price for purchasing the land Survey No. 14 of one Narayan. The said transaction did not materialise and, therefore, the respondent asked back the said amount from the petitioner. The petitioner was unable to pay the said amount and, therefore, under a document dated August 15, 1955 the suit land was given in possession of the respondent on a Munafa basis of Rs. 300/- per year. The said document was only for a period of one year but on the same terms and conditions the possession of the respondent continued for some years. It was agreed between the parties that the respondents possession shall continue until the re-payment of amount of Rs. 2,000/-.

(2.) Respondent also filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 35 of 1961 claiming an amount of Rs. 2,000/- with interest which he alleged to have paid to the petitioner in July, 1955. The said suit came to be dismissed on April 28, 1962. An appeal was preferred against the said dismissal, which was partly allowed on February 4, 1963 to the extent of Rs. 1475/-. Both the parties came in second appal in this High Court and the said second appeal of the petitioner was allowed and that of the respondent dismissed on October 8, 1970. According to the petitioner the possession of the suit land was restored in the year 1962 and a mutation Entry No. 184 came to be made in the Revenue Records and in the column of cultivation the name of the petitioner was shown for the years 1962-63, 1963-64 and 1964-65. The respondent filed proceedings under section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Sub-Divisional Officer bearing file No. Cri.P.C. 144/145/64. In the said proceedings a preliminary order was passed on June 5, 1964 and in the result the application was granted and the order of restoration of possession of disputed land was passed in favour of the respondent and respondent was restored possession on July 10, 1967. The petitioner thereafter filed the present suit on July 28, 1967. Curious part of the litigation is that the respondent claims to be a tenant on the basis of agreement of Batai that means share in the crop. The respondent also denied that he was in possession on the basis of that agreement. At one stage the respondent denies the execution of the document and at the another stage he files a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,000/- on the basis of the said document and that litigation came upto the High Court. It is an admitted position that respondent had not paid any rent whatsoever right from 1955 to this day except the alleged payment of Rs. 2,000/-.

(3.) On June 17, 1978 I directed the tenant to deposit the entire rent with effect from 1962 to 1978 at the rate of Rs. 300/- per year. Thereafter two adjournments were granted to deposit the rent and today the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent stated that the respondent is not in a position to pay the rent or arrears of rent. Therefore, today the matter is placed before this Court for final disposal of the Special Civil Application.