APPALAL ALIAS ISMAIL IBRAHIM PATHARWAL Vs. SHABASHIRAJ MULLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. M. R. Suryavanshi for the petitioner and Mr. R. D. Suryavanshi i/b mr. S. G. Deshmukh for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

(2.) RESPONDENT 1 to 3 filed a civil suit in 1962 for possession of certain land, namely , survey no. 169 1/a and 1/c. In that suit the present petitioner was defendant No. 3, his wife Masayabi was defendant No. 2 and his sister in law Jamulabi was defendant No. 1. In that suit the petitioner raised a plea that he was a tenant of the suit land from the landlords Jamulabi and Masyabi i. e. bis sister in law and his wife. The Civil Court, kurundwad, therefore framed a issue and referred it to the tenancy Aval karkun for decision. The tenancy Avail Karkun recorded evidence and answered the issue in affirmative and in favour of the petitioner by his order dated 31. 7. 1982. The respondents filed an appeal before the Deputy Collector (Special Land Acquisition Officer, Kolhapur ). That appeal was allowed and order of the Tenancy Aval karkun was set aside and the reference was answered in the negative. This order was challenged by the petitioner before Maharashtra Revenue tribunal Kolhapur (MRT), but he lost there also. Hence , this petition.

(3.) IT was strenuously urged by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has by his oral evidence as'well as documentary evidence proved his status'as a tenant of the suit land and his wife and as well as his sister-in-law as landlord. He contended that the case of the petitioner was supported by document, namely, Kabulayat and also from the evidence of the scribe of kabulayat. (The kabulayat is at record page 133 and evidence of the scribe is on record page 139 ). He also urged that the 7/12 extract in respect of the suit land for the year 1961-62 was in the name of the petitioner and all these circumstances coupled with the oral evidence of actual possession, proved the case of the petitioner completely. He pointed out that the mrt had rejected the case of the petitioner on the wrong assumption that a lease deed or kabulayat in respect of the agricultural land was required to be registered. He also pointed out that the appreciation of facts and circumstances and evidence by the MRT and the appellate court were contrary to the legal provisions and therefore both the orders were perverse and were liable to be set aside.