RAMCHANDRA MUKTA SHELKAR Vs. KARBHARI PANDHARINATH TARADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Bhimraj Nana Tarade was the owner of agricultural land, admeasuring 3 Acres 23 Gunthas, located in Survey No. 124/1 of Village Aradgaon, Taluka Rahuri, District Ahmednagar and on his death sometimes in 1945 the said property was succeeded by his second wife Vithabai who was issueless and Bhimraj had sons from his first wife, who were perhaps minor at the relevant time. The present petitioner was inducted as a tenant by Vithabai by way of oral lease and he was cultivating the said land on the basis of the said lease. On the tillers day i. e. on 1st April, 1957 he was in possession of the said land as a cultivator and it appears from the record that proceedings under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Bombay Tenancy Act, for short), were instituted suo motu by the A. L. T. and Additional Mamlatdar, Rahuri sometimes in the year 1960. Though the tenants statement was recorded on 22nd July, 1960 in these proceedings, the proceedings were closed by order dated 20th November, 1962 on the ground that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant in respect of the suit land.

(2.) KARBHARI Pandhari Tarade, who is one of the grandsons and Sukhalal Bhimraj Tarade, the son of the original landlord, jointly approached the Civil Judge, Junior Division at Rahuri in Regular Civil Suit No. 7 of 1974 claiming resumption of land from the petitioner tenant, who was impleaded as defendant No. 1 and other heirs of Bhimraj were impleaded as defendant Nos. 2 to 5. In fact, this was a suit for redemption of mortgage of the suit property. The defendant No. 1 tenant filed his written statement and contended that he was a tenant as contemplated under the Bombay Tenancy Act over the suit land and he desired to purchase the said lands. The suit appears to have been filed on 19th December, 1973 and the written statement was filed on 25th September, 1974. By an order dated 21st August, 1976, the learned Judge of the Civil Court framed the following issues:

(3.) THE Tahsildar, Rahuri instituted the proceedings for enquiry on the issue referred by the Civil Court and in addition to the documents, such as record of rights, 7/12 extracts etc. , oral depositions of the plaintiff Karbhari Pandharinath and the Mukhtiyar holder of defendant No. 1 as well as two witnesses in support of the said defendant No. 1, were also recorded. The plaintiff relied upon the statement of the defendant No. 1 allegedly recorded in an inquiry under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy Act on 22nd July, 1960 and the order passed on 20th November, 1962 by the A. L. T. The A. L. T. , by order dated 31st July, 1978, answered the reference in favour of the defendant No. 1 and held that he was a tenant in respect of the suit land before 1st April, 1957, after 1st April, 1957 and even in the year when the order was passed i. e. 1977-78. The plaintiffs, therefore, filed Tenancy Appeal No. 50 of 1978 before the Sub Divisional Officer at Rahuri and the said appeal came to be dismissed by order dated 26th November, 1979 confirming the order passed by the A. L. T. Both these orders were taken up in challenge in Revision Application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (M. R. T.) and the revision came to be allowed by the judgment and order dated 11th January, 1983. The Tribunal held that the earlier order passed in an inquiry under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy Act remained unchallenged and subsequent Mutation Entry No. 2594 also remained unchallenged and, therefore, these proceedings operated as res judicata against the defendant No. 1. It was solely on this ground that the M. R. T. held that the present petitioner was not a tenant on the suit land and the orders passed by both the authorities below came to be reversed. The petitioner tenant has brought in question the legality of the order passed by the M. R. T.