BHAURAO S O VITHAL Vs. GODAWARIBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Godawaribai, present respondent No. 1 before me filed a petition under section 98 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter it is referred to as "Tenancy Act"), for obtaining possession of the disputed lands from the present petitioners who were respondents before the Deputy Collector. She admitted in para 4 of her petition that Vithal, father of the present petitioners 1 and 2 and the husband of present petitioner No. 3, was given these lands on Batai basis in the year 1960. It is never mentioned by her in this petition that Vithal was her partner in cultivation in respect of these lands. She further alleged that later on an agreement of sale was entered into between her and Vithal. She alleged that permission for such sale was not obtained. She further alleged that Vithal had not paid the full consideration also and had not taken a registered sale-deed also from her. She, therefore, prayed that possession should be handed over to her under section 98 of the Tenancy Act.

(2.) Petitioners resisted this petition. They challenged the jurisdiction of the Deputy Collector to give relief to Godawaribai under section 98 of the Tenancy Act. They contended that they were in possession of the lands in pursuance of the agreement for sale. According to them, the full amount of consideration is paid to one of the executants by name Laxmibai. They denied that the contract for sale was void and they denied that any permission was required for this transaction. They asserted that they were in possession of the lands in part performance of the contract for sale executed on 5-8-1963 and they claimed protection under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act.

(3.) Parties gave in writing that they did not want to lead any oral evidence and they would like to argue the matter only. Accordingly, the arguments were advanced and the learned Deputy Collector granted the application of present respondent No. 1 and passed an order for possession. The petitioners went in appeal to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and the learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal wrote a very lengthy judgment of about 16 pages and ultimately dismissed this appeal. This order is challenged in this petition.