Chandrachud, J. - (1.) The respondent Shri Nageshwardeo Patas Abhishekh Anusthan Trust filed a suit against the appellant Gopala Ganu Wagale, since deceased, for possession of two lands, Survey Nos. 249 and 544 situated at Patas, district Pune, alleging that the appellant was a trespasser. The appellant having raised a plea that he was in possession of the lands as a tenant, the trial Court referred the issue of tenancy to the Tehsildar under S. 85-A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. the Court also referred another incidental issue to the Tehsildar as to whether the appellant could be deemed to have purchased the suit lands on the tiller"s day, namely, April 1, 1957.
(2.) The Tehsildar, relying upon the notice dated December 22, 1956 issued by the respondent to the appellant under S. 31 of the Bombay Tenancy Act and upon the proceedings initiated by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal under S. 32-C of the Tenancy Act, answered the issues in favour of the appellant by holding that he was in possession of the lands as a tenant of the respondent-trust. Respondent"s appeal against the decision of the Tehsildar was dismissed by the Additional Collector and in revision, the Revenue ribunal confirmed the view of the authorities below. The respondent thereafter filed a petition in the Bombay High Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution which was allowed by the High Court on September 23, 1975. Differing from the concurrent findings of the three authorities, the High Court held that the appellant was not in possession of the lands as a tenant of the respondent. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court.
(3.) The limits of the High Court"s jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution are too well established to require any elaborate restatement. The High Court, in the exercise of its powers under Art. 227, cannot function as a Court of appeal and is generally bound by the findings of fact recorded by the tribunal below. But bearing in mind these limitations, we are unable to accept the contention pressed upon us by Mr. Ganpule, appearing on behalf of the appellant, that the High Court has exceeded its powers in interfering with the judgment of the Revenue Tribunal.;