CHHATRAPATI CHARITABLE DEVASTHAN TRUST Vs. PARISA APPA BHOSKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, Public Trust filed a suit for possession of certain agricultural lands situate at Uchagaon in taluka Karvir of Kolhapur district against the defendants on the ground of trespass by the defendants in the suit lands or in the alternative on the ground that they are tenants whose tenancy was duly ter-minated.

(2.) The suit lands i. e. Survey Nos. 140 and 141 initially (belonged to Chhatrapati of Kolhapur who created a trust called "Shri Chhatrapati Charitable Devasthan Trust" and the suit lands were donated to the said trust The said trust was created on 18th of Jen. 1956 and thereafter it was registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The trust obtained a certificate under Section 88-B (2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. It is not necessary to make a reference to the other averments made in plaint because ultimately it appears from the judgment of the trial Court that the case of trespass was given up by the plaintiff and the suit proceeded on the basis that the predecessor of defendant No. 4, Anant Mudhale was the only tenant of the suit lands and his tenancy was duly terminated. It appears from the record that Ms tenancy was terminated by a notice dated 23rd September 1967 with effect from the end of March 1968,

(3.) Defendant No, 4, who was the real contesting defendant filed his written statement and contested the suit. He denied the fact that the Trust had obtained any certificate under Section 88B (2) of the Tenancy Act and according to him even if such a certificate was obtained by the trust, it was not binding on him as he was not a party to the said proceedings. Original defendant No. 4 died during the pendency of the suit and his heirs were brought on record. They have filed their written statement vide Exhibit 45. It was contended on behalf of the heirs of defendant No. 4 that on 1st April 1957 they and their predecessor Anant became owners of the suit lands in view of the provisions of Section 32 of the Tenancy Act. They further contended that thereafter the suit lands did not belong to the Trust at all and hence the notice of termination of tenancy is of no consequence or effect On these grounds, according to the defendants the suit itself was not maintainable,