RAMA BHOPYA TELI Vs. NAIMUNNISA NAIMUNBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these petitions raise common questions. Field Survey No. 20, measuring 30 acres 30 gunthas of Mouza Hiwari, Taluka Kelapur, District Yavatmal is in possession of Petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 122/74 and Field Survey No. 26/1, measuring 7 acres 22 gunthas of the same village is in possession of the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 123/74. The landholder/respondent is common. Some time in the year 1968, the respondent filed two applications under Section 100 (2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for a declaration that the petitioners were not tenants over the property and that they were trespassers.

(2.) The undisputed facts emerging from the pleadings as well as from the evidence seem to be as under:-

(3.) In the background of these undisputed position on 22-8-1968, the proceedings under Section 100 (2) referred to above, came to be initiated at the instance of the respondents. She came up with a case that the cultivating possession of the petitioners was without any rights whatsoever and that they have trespassed over the field property in her absence when she went to village Yerala in Hinganghat Tahsil of District Wardha along with her husband. She, however, in the application did not state as to when she left the village and actually when she learnt about the alleged trespass. However, it appears that for the first time on 8-7-1968, she gave a notice making a grievance that the petitioners were taking advantage of her absence and that they should stop cultivating the field. As they continued possession over the property, these proceedings were filed the cause of action for which, it is stated, had arisen on 13-7-1968, when the notice was received. The petitioners filed a reply raising a contention that they are in cultivating possession as lessees since 1951-52 from Illahiuddin who was recorded as owner of the lands in question during the relevant period and that they were tenants and have become deemed tenants under the Act having been in lawful possession of the property, on 30-12-1958 when the Act came into force. An application for better particulars was also filed at the earliest opportunity seeking details as to when according to the respondent, she was married when she left the village and when according to her, the petitioners entered into the so-called illegal possession. That application was seriously opposed on behalf of the respondent and came to be rejected. Various documents were filed including a receipt dated 2-4-1952 under signature of Illahiuddin, who is reported to have died long ago. Oral evidence was recorded and the respondent in the course of her examination has given the following admissions :--