LAKHAMGOWDA BASAPRABHU SARDESAI Vs. JAMBHU TAVANAPPA ADAKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff, Lakhamgouda, sued to recover possession of certain lands from the defendants alleging that they were his tenants, arrears of rent and future mesne profits. The defence was that the defendants were holding the lands as tenants under a permanent lease. Two principal issues were raised, (1) Do defendants prove that they are entitled to hold the suit lands as the permanent tenants thereof on the strength of exhibit 61, and (2) whether they are entitled to the status of permanent tenants by adverse possession ? The learned Subordinate Judge held that the defendants were entitled to hold the suit lands as plaintiff's tenants on a fixed rent during the term of plaintiff's natural life only. In his opinion the document on which the defendants relied, exhibit 61, was not a permanent lease. But he held that the defendants had asserted their right to hold as permanent tenants in proceedings before the Revenue authorities in the year 1897, and had from that time been holding the lands adversely to the plaintiff, their landlord ; and, for this reason, he held that they had acquired by adverse possession a limited interest in the land, i.e. the right of tenancy during the; plaintiffs lifetime. Since the lands were watan lands, he held that the right which they had acquired against the plaintiff would not continue against his descendants.

(2.) This appeal has been riled by the plaintiff Sardesai of Vantmuri, and we are concerned with the question of adverse possession. The facts on which the decision must be based are briefly as follows.

(3.) In the time of the plaintiff's father the tenant in possession was one Datto Govind Punde, and plaintiff's father sued him in 1872 and got a decree in his favour for possession. Datto appealed but did not persist in his appeal, for the parties came to terms and the plaintiff's father accepted a rent-note, which is exhibit 61. It is on the terms of this document that the present defendants, who are the successors-in-interest of Datto, rely in support of their contention that they are permanent tenants. This is a question which has been raised by cross-objection, and I will consider it later.