BARKELO APA GURAV AGRICULTURIST Vs. ANANT YESHWANT PARYEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD. Perused the record.

(2.) THIS second appeal has been admitted by this Court by formulating following substantial questions of law:-Whether in view of the fact that the learned Addl. District Judge came to the conclusion that the Trial Judge had without justification, interfered with the issues framed by his predecessor and that the issues as reframed by the Trial Court, were not required to be determined. It was incumbent upon the Addl. District Judge to remand the matter to the Trial Court for fresh appraisal of evidence, especially in view of the fact that the learned Addl. District Judge had come to the conclusion that the learned Trial Judge had drawn imaginary plans and decided the suit with reference to those plans.

(3.) WHETHER in view of the specific claim of the appellants that they were lessees in respect of the suit property, having been given the said property on Aforamento perpetuates and in view of the denial of the said claim on behalf of the original defendant no. 1, an issue of tenancy arose, which had to be decided exclusively by the Mamlatdar under the Agricultural Tenancy Act.