RUNJAJI SURYABHANJI Vs. MANJURABAI URKUDAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE fields involved in this case are Survey Nos. 77/1, area 12 acres 10 gunthas, 34/1, area 1 acres 20 gunthas and 17/3, area 8 acres 20 gunthas of mouza Kushta Buzruk, taluq Achalpur, District Amravati. In Survey Nos. 34/1 and 17/3 Suryabhan alone was recorded as the joint tenants. In survey Nos. 34/1 and 17/3 Suryabhan died on 3-5-1962, Suryabhan had three sons Runjaji, Punjaji and Urkuda and a wife Bhagirathi and two daughters whose names have not come on record anyway. Urkuda, one of the sons of Suryabhan, predeceased him having died in the year 1957. Urkuda left behind him a widow Manjurabai and son Nagorao.

(2.) ON the death of Suryabhan the widow and son of Urkuda, namely, Manjuribai and Nagorao, the respondents 1 and 2 to the present petition, made an application under Section 36 read with Section 33 of the Bombay Tenancy and agricultural Lands Act, 1958, by which they claimed that they be put in joint possession of the fields in question or the fields may be partitioned and they be put in possession of their respective shares. In this application, the other sons of Suryabhan, namely Runjaji and Punjaji and also Hari, the joint tenants in field survey No. 77/1, were added as non-applicants. In this application it was alleged by the respondents 1 and 2 that Suryabhanji had taken the fields on lease about 20 years back. It was also alleged that the deceased Suryabhanji was the karta of the joint family of himself and his three sons Runjaji, Punjaji and Urkuda and he was the manager or the karta of the joint family till his death in 1962 and had taken the fields on lease as such. It was further alleged by the respondents 1 and 2 that after the death of Suryabhanji, they were also entitled to cultivate the fields as lessees, but taking advantage of their helplessness the petitioner Runjaji did not allow them to cultivate the fields in suit in the year 1962-1963 and had ousted them without any such authority. It was on these allegations that they prayed joint possession of the fields as lessees and in the alternative claimed partition and separate possession with respect to their share.

(3.) THE petitioner No. 1 Runjaji opposed the said application. It was his contention that he was the real lessee of these fields and the deceased Suryabhan was only a benamidar for him. He himself was cultivating these fields as a lessee on his own account and that Suryabhanji had no interest in the said fields. He denied that there was a joint family with Suryabhanji as the manager or the karta. According to him, he was separate and had taken the lease of these fields for himself alone. He alleged that in about the year 1954; there was a partition between Urkuda, Suryabhan and Punjaji and Urkuda and Punjaji had taken their separate shares and had become separate and since then, they were not the members of the joint Hindu family. Punjaji and Bhagirathi supported the claim of Runjaji.