KRISHNABAI Vs. BABURAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short and interesting question that arises in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioners' contention that the respondents and their pre-decessor-in-title by name Ashru were the tenants, is barred on account of the decision in another tenancy case which was given on the hypothesis that they were the tenants.

(2.) The controversy arises in the following manner: Survey No. 177, admeasuring 34.19 acres and situated at Anjani Bk. was originally owned by the petitioner No. 1 Krishnabai and her husband Raghunath. Raghunath is now dead and the petitioners Nos. 2 to 10 are his legal representatives. The respondents Nos. 1 to 11 are the heirs and legal representatives of a person by name Ashru. After the new Tenancy Act, Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 came into force, the name of Ashru was entered as " tenant of Survey No. 177. Such an entry was made as laid down in S. 8 of the Tenancy Act. It reads as follows:

(3.) The owners Krishnabai and Raghu-nath felt aggrieved by the entry of Ashru in the list of tenants prepared under Section 8. They, therefore, filed an application under Section 8 (3) of the Tenancy Act disputing that entry. The application was numbered as Revenue Case No. 72/59 of 1959-60. In that application it was alleged that Ashru was not a tenant but was a partner in cultivation, and that therefore, his name should be deleted from the list of tenants. The Tenancy Naib-Tahsildar heard the controversy. He recorded the evidence that was led before him. It is necessary to mention at this stage that Ashru died during the pendency of this proceeding and his heirs (viz. present respondents Nos. 1 to 111 were brought on record. The Tenancy Naib-Tahsildar held that the name of Ashru from the list of the tenants should be deleted as he was only a partner in cultivation. This order was challenged by some of the legal representatives of Ashru. It appears that at that time Raghunath was dead and his heirs were also brought on record. The appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer was numbered as 9/59 of 1964-65. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal on 28-3-1970. The legal representatives of Ashru took the matter in revision to Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. 1432 of 1970. The Tribunal allowed the revision on 15-12-1971. He held that on account of certain decisions in proceedings under Section 38 of Tenancy Act, it would not be possible for the landholder to contend that Ashru was not a tenant. I will refer to the nature of these proceedings in details at later stage. It is this order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal that is being challenged before me.