ABDUL KARIM KHAN Vs. LALMAN LACHMANJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question raised in this appeal is as to whether the decision under section 44 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (which shall be hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), operates as res judicata for the suit filed by the plaintiff.

(2.) The question arises thus: The plaintiff-appellant is the owner of survey No. 22, measuring 21 acres, situated at Sattara village in taluka and district Aurangabad. In March 1969, the plaintiff filed an application in the Court of the Naib-Tehsildar and Land Reforms, Aurangabad for recovering possession of the land from the different respondents, under section 44 read with section 32 (2) of the Act. That application was resisted by the defendant by contending, inter alia, that he had ceased to be a tenant of the plaintiff by reason of the fact that under an Isarpavti dated July 17, 1953 the plaintiff had agreed to sell the land to him for Rs. 12,001 and that he had already paid a major part of the consideration under the said agreement. The plaintiff denied of his having executed the agreement in question. But it appears that in support of his contention the defendant filed not only the agreement on which his contention was founded but also an affidavit of the plaintiff dated Dec. 9, 1953 which was attested by the Deputy Collector. Aurangabad, admitting inter alia that he had sold the land to the defendant. Having regard to that fact the Naib-Tehsildar held that the relation between the plaintiff and defendant as landlord and tenant had come to an end and he, therefore, dismissed that application.

(3.) Aggrieved by that order the plaintiff took an appeal to the Collector. The appeal was heard by the Additional Collector, Aurangabad, and having regard to the fact that what was-alleged to be executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant, was only an agreement of sale and that in fact even thereafter the plaintiff had successively filed suits against the defendant for arrears of rent, the Additional Collector held that the Plaintiff had proved the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant. However, he remanded the matter to the lower Court with a direction to find out whether the Isarpavti was executed and the affidavit to that effect had been produced in the Court of the Assistant Collector and whether the sale certificate had been issued and whether there was validation of the sale.