AMARSANGJI INDRASANGJI Vs. RANCHHOD JETHABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are some thirty-three appeals from the judgment of the District Judge of Ahmedabad reversing the decision of the Subordinate Judge and dismissing the plaintiffs suits with costs. The suits nil raise the same point. They are brought by the plaintiffs as the Thakors of Mohoghar claiming that they hold in joint ownership the wanta of the village of Mehmadpura. This wanta consists in all of 104 acres, of which 94 acres are in dispute in this and the companion suits, so the learned District Judge tells us.

(2.) The principal point in dispute is as to whether the defendants are annual tenants us the plaintiffs contend, or whether they are permanent tenants as the defendants contend. There is a subsidiary point, as to whether, even if the defendants are annual tenants, the plaintiffs are entitled to enhance the rent. It appears that by an alleged notice to quit, dated February 5, 1916, the plaintiffs called on the defendants to pay an increased rent and to sign a writing to that effect, and that in default they were to give up possession. This was to be done within ten days. The defendants replied repudiating the right of the plaintiffs to give this notice and claiming that they were permanent tenants. Consequently in the same year 1916, Suit No. 136 of 191 (i wan brought by the plaintiffs but was subsequently withdrawn with permission to bring another suit. Thereafter, namely, on November 26, 1918, this present Suit No. 288 of 1918 and its companion suits were brought.

(3.) Now in thin case we have the advantage of a particularly clear judgment of the learned District Judge, which relieves me from the necessity ot setting out the facts or the reasons for our judgment in any great detail. The case largely turns upon Section 83 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, which provides that :- Where, by reason of the antiquity of a tenancy, no satisfactory evidence of its commencement is forthcoming, and there is not any such evidence of the period of its intended duration, if tiny, agreed upon between the landlord and tenant or those under whom they respectively claim title, or any usage of the locality as to duration of such tenancy, it shall, as against the immediate landlord of the tenant, be presumed to be co- extensive with the duration of the tenure of such landlord and of those who derive title under him.