Skip to content


Hanutmal Asram Mandha Vs. Nathu Venkoba - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtMumbai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Appln. No. 142 of 1962
Judge
Reported inAIR1967Bom190; (1963)65BOMLR654
ActsBombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 - Sections 8(1) and 8(2)
AppellantHanutmal Asram Mandha
RespondentNathu Venkoba
Appellant AdvocateB.D. Kalthalay, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateM.V. Nikam, Adv.
Excerpt:
.....and kutch area) act (bom. xcix of 1958), section 8 - evidentiary value of entry or absence of entry in list made under section 8(1) of act--whether person loses status of tenant if his name does not appear in such list.;the evidentiary value to be attached to an entry or absence of entry in a list made under section 8(1) of the bombay tenancy and agricultural lands (vidarbha region and kutch area) act, 1958, is of a limited character and in no case that is conclusive of the rights of parties. it cannot be said that a person gets the status of a tenant because his name appears in the list, or loses such status because his name does not appear in the list. the finality that is given under section 8(2) of the act to the entry made in the list is so far as proceedings required to be..........to the tenancy court by the trial judge.(3) in support of this revision it is contended that a list of tenant is prepared in respect of this village and this field, as provided under section 8 (1) of the new tenancy act. the name of the opponent does not appear in this list and under sub-section (2) of section 8 of the new tenancy act the entry in the list has become final. it is therefore contended that the opponent is now precluded from raising the dispute as to the applicant's status, his name not appearing in the list. in my opinion, no such conclusive effect is given to the entry in the list under section 8 (1) of the act. that entry cannot have a greater evidentiary value than an entry made in the record of rights, and in the instant case as the name of the opponent is not.....
Judgment:
ORDER

(1) This is an application by plaintiff, complaining against the order of the trial Court referring certain issues, namely, issues nos. 4, 5, 7 and 9 to Revenue Court under the new Tenancy Act, The applicant purchases field survey no. 172 from one Ingle on foot of a sale deed dated 15-5-57. The applicant's case is that he himself was in personal cultivation of the field in the year 1957-58 and also reaped the crops thereof in that year. The crops for the year 1958-59 were also taken by the applicant plaintiff. He had however engaged the opponent as an agricultural servant. The opponent took forcible possession of the field in July 1959 and hence the applicant filed this suit on 18-8-61 for possession of the field from the opponent.

(2) The opponent has contended that he was an agricultural servant of the applicant but he was a bataidar, having cultivated the field under a batai contract in the year 1957-58 from the applicant. The applicant claims to be a tenant of the field and therefore the issue whether the applicant has acquired the status of a tenant has been raised before the Civil Court. There are subsidiary issues which also arise as a result of this plea raised by the defendant. These have been referred to the Tenancy Court by the trial Judge.

(3) In support of this revision it is contended that a list of tenant is prepared in respect of this village and this field, as provided under section 8 (1) of the new Tenancy Act. The name of the opponent does not appear in this list and under sub-section (2) of section 8 of the new Tenancy Act the entry in the list has become final. It is therefore contended that the opponent is now precluded from raising the dispute as to the applicant's status, his name not appearing in the list. In my opinion, no such conclusive effect is given to the entry in the list under section 8 (1) of the Act. That entry cannot have a greater evidentiary value than an entry made in the record of rights, and in the instant case as the name of the opponent is not shown as a tenant. Even entry in the record of rights raise only a rebuttable presumption. It is a piece of evidence to be taken into consideration when title to the property is in question. It cannot be said that a person gets the status of a tenant because his name appears in the list, or loses such status because his name does not appear in the list. If that be the question raised in the suit, Mamlatdar must decide the question. The finality that is given under sub-section (2) of the section 8 to he entry made in the list is so far as proceedings required to be taken under section 8 are concerned. As will appear from a reading of the section, no elaborate enquiry is to be made by the Tahsildar under section 8 in preparing the list. It is doubtful whether notice of enquiry has been issued to the opposite side. Thus, the evidentiary value to be attached to an entry or absence of entry in such a list is of a limited character and in no case that is conclusive of the rights of the parties.

(4) As an issue has arisen as to the status claimed by the defendant as a tenant and the nature of relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, the issues have been properly referred to the Tenancy Court.

(5) The result is that the revision application fails and is dismissed with costs.

(6) Application dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //