Rajagonda Sakharam Patil Since ... vs Shivappa Babu Koli, Since ...
2002 Latest Caselaw 106 Bom

JUDGMENT

J.G. Chitre, J.

1. The petitioner is taking exception to the judgment and order passed by the M.R.T. in the matter of Revision Application No. M.R.T.-K.P. -166A/86 dated 19-10-1988 by which the learned member of M.R.T. dismissed the revision application filed by the present petitioner challenging the judgment and order which was passed by M.R.T. in revision application by which he had confirmed the judgment passed by S.D.O. Karvir in Tenancy Appeal No. 383/75.

2. Shri Nitin Muley, Counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently argued the cause in favour of the petitioner by pointing out that the learned S.D.O. Karvir had committed the error of facts as well as law by coming to the conclusion that there was no evidence to justify the conclusion drawn by Additional Tahsildar and A.L.T. Hatkanangale holding that then present petitioner was in possession of the suit land prior to tillers day i.e. 1-4-1957 and, as such, he was tenant of the said land. It is pertinent to note that the S.D.O. Karvir had pointed out in his judgment that the relevant provisions of Transfer of Property Act and provisions of section 17 of Indian Registration Act were applicable to the agreement which was to be performed by the petitioner for justifying his claim as the tenant of the suit land by virtue of the said agreement. He had pointed out that on account of non-registration, the said agreement could not be read in evidence. Furthermore, the S.D.O. Karvir had also pointed out that in view of provisions of section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, when document was in existence, no oral evidence can be adduced for the purpose of clarifying the terms and conditions embodied in the said agreement. On this ground the S.D.O. Karvir had set aside the judgment and order which was passed by the Additional Tahsildar and A.L.T. Hatkanangale in favour of the petitioner.

3. The learned Member of M.R.T. found that the approach adopted by the S.D.O. Karveer was right and was consistent with the evidence on record as well as the provisions of law. He dismissed the contentions raised by the petitioner claiming himself to be the tenant of the suit land. After examining the evidence on record, this Court finds that the learned member of M.R.T. did not commit any error whatsoever in dismissing the revision application preferred by the present petitioner for the reasons stated hereunder.

4. It is the claim of the petitioner that he came in possession of the suit and on account of the previous tenant abandoning his right of cultivation of the said land as tenant. The present petitioner had contended that for two years he was cultivating the said land. It means impliedly that he was in possession of the suit land. When that was so, where was the need of inserting a sentence in the said agreement that in the year 1967 when the said agreement took place, he was given the possession of the suit land. This statement in the said agreement when the said agreement has been put forth by the present petitioner, comes in his way and unequivocally declares that before April 1957 the petitioner was never in possession of the said land. Furthermore, the entires which indicate his cultivation so far as the suit land is concerned, have not been corroborated by any other acceptable evidence. Therefore, both the S.D.O. and the learned member of M.R.T. were right in dismissing the claim of the petitioner as tenant.

5. When there is concurrent findings of two forums below and this Court is exercising the jurisdiction of superintendence in view of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, there should be compelling ground for allowing the interference in view of the superintendence jurisdiction. There is no such ground available necessitating the interference from this Court. Thus, the result is dismissal of this writ petition with costs. The Additional Tahsildar and A.L.T. Hatkanangale should proceed with the enquiry in respect of the said land for adjudicating on the claims preferred by the litigants in view of section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. Stay stands vacated. Rule stands discharged. Enquiry to be completed as early as possible and positively within one year.