DHONDBA RAOJI JADHAO Vs. KRISHNABAI GOPALRAO RAJE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Smt. Bhagirathibai was the owner of field survey No. 121, measuring 21 acres 36 gunthas of mouza Pardi, Taluka Pusad, District Yavatmal. She expired some time after the year 1960 and the respondents succeeded as her heirs. The petitioner Dhondba had put up a case that initially he had taken the field property on lease, but in the year 1960, he entered into oral contract of sale in respect of that property with the deceased Bhagirathibai and had, in fact, paid a sum of Rs. 3100 as earnest money and continued to remain in possession in his right as a prospective purchaser.

(2.) BETWEEN the parties, there was some dispute which was finally decided by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 255 of 1970. In those Revenue proceedings, one Ukanda had also put up his case saying that he was a tenant. The case of Ukanda did not find favour with the authorities and Ukanda remained satisfied with the order that were passed against him. Petitioner Dhondba was also held to be neither a tenant nor a person in possession in pursuance of an agreement of pale, by the trial Court. The Sub -Divisional Officer as an appellate authority set aside these findings recorded against the petitioner holding that the issue of status of Dhondba as a purchaser did not arise for decision. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, however, reversed the order passed by the appellate authority maintaining that of the trial Court. Dhondba challenged this order in the High Court by filing Special Civil Application, reference to which has been made by me earlier. The High Court quashed the order passed by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal to a limited extent regarding a finding that the revenue Courts had no jurisdiction to decide the question of the right of the petitioner as a prospective purchaser, on the basis of agreement of sale of the year 1960. This is what the High Court has observed :

(3.) THE petitioner once again put up the defence before the Collector of his being in possession under a contract of sale and he further contended that under the circumstances proceeding under section 120 of the Act was not maintainable, specially when the dispute is of civil nature and Civil Suit for seeking the same relief of eviction was already pending. It appears that the petitioner wanted to adduce evidence in support of his contention about the contract of sale and the legality of his possession but the said attempt was thwarted by the respondents saying that he could not be permitted to lead evidence in view of the provisions of section 53 -A of the Transfer of Property Act, which refers to only agreement of sale in writing. The Collector was pleased to grant the application, thereby ordering summary eviction of the petitioner, inter alia holding as under: