The judgment of the Tribunal was set aside by the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Applica tion No.
The proceedings under section 85 A of the Bombay Tenancy Act ended sometime late in 1972.
On February 6, 1975 the appeal filed by the, appellant therefrom was dismissed summarily by the High Court.
Within two or three weeks of the execution of the power of attorney, the appellant succeeded in obtaining possession of the lands from one Nathuram Agarwal on payment of a sum of Rs.
2000 annually from the net income of the lands.
On February 1, 1963 the respondent executed a power of attorney in favour of the appellant.
1430 of 1971.
On December 29, 1961 a power of attorney was prepared for being executed by the respondent in favour of Western India Trustee and Executor Co. Ltd., Satara.
The appellants application for leave to appeal to this Court was dismissed by the High Court and the peti tion for special leave filed in this Court met with the same fate.
On January 1, 1967 the appellants name, on an application made by him, was entered in the record of rights as a tenant of the respondent In February, 1968 appellant gave a numberice to the respondent under section 32 0 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act stat ing that, being a tenant of the lands, he had acquired a statutory right to purchase the lands and that he was will ing to exercise that right.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 6 2 1975 of the Bombay High Court in First Appeal No.13/75 .
Admittedly, he obtained possession under the power of attorney executed by the respondent in his favour and there is numberhing on the record to show that the character of his possession ever changed as a result of the companytract of sale.
The suit property companysists of 3 agricultural lands bearing Survey Nos.
That application was opposed by the respondent and was dismissed on April 13, 1973.
By a letter dated March 3, 1963 addressed to the respondent, the appellant agreed to undertake the duties specified in the power of attorney and to pay to her a sum of Rs.
The High Court held that the appel lant was in possession of the lands as an agent of the respondent under the power of attorney and that the Tribunal was in error in upsetting the finding of the Collector and the Tahsildar that the appellant was number a tenant of the respondent.
The lands are situated in a village called Kiwale in Pune district.
Respondent disputed the appel lants claim by her reply of February 26 and after an ex change of further numberices, respondent filed the present suit on May 3, 1968.
On November 30, 1974 the suit was decreed by the trial companyrt.
The High Court held that the revision application raised numberquestion of jurisdiction and that the application for amend ment made by the appellant was mala fide.
At long last, the suit which was field by the respondent in May, 1968 was taken up for hearing in January, 1974.
But for some reason or the other the document remained unexecuted.
The appellant companytended that the power of attorney was executed by the respondent in his favour solely in order to enable him to obtain posses sion of the lands from Nathuram and that, otherwise, it was a sham document, a mere cloak for inducting him on the land by evicting an unauthorized occupant.
The appellant companytinued in possession of the property from year to year on payment, at intervals, of the agreed sum of Rs.
The appellant filed a civil revision application in the High Court against that order.
98/1 1, 98/1 2 and 99, admeasuring in all 54 acres and 20 gunthan.
The Tahsildar decided the issue against the appellant holding that he was number a tenant of the respondent.
On the very next day the respondent obtained possession of the suit lands from the appellant, which in the long companytext, must go on the record as a matter of refreshing promptitude.
The appellant companytinued to remit, off and on, the agreed annual sum of Rs.
Alternatively, the respondent prayed for a decree for possession of the suit lands.
After admitting the revision, the High Court heard both the sides and companyfirmed the order of the trial companyrt rejecting the amendment application.
This Court granted special leave to the appellant in April, 1976.
These lands belonged originally to the respondents husband who died on February 20, 1960 leaving her as his sole heir.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISIDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The true nature of this document and its real purpose are both in dispute but ex facie, the document was to be effective for a period of one year and was executed in order to enable the appellant to manage the respondents lands and to arrange to cultivate them.
2000 per annum.
The object of the power of attorney, as expressed therein, was inter alia, to authorize the Company to companylect the income of the land and to take steps for disposing of the land by sale.
Several issues were struck by the trial companyrt on these pleadings but it is only necessary to state at this stage that since the main issue in the suit was whether the appel lant was in possession of the lands as a tenant of the respondent, the Civil Court had numberjurisdiction to decide the respondents claim for possession and had to refer the issue of tenancy to the Tahsildar under section 85 A of the Bombay Tenancy Act.
That suit was filed by the respondent, Gangabai Hariharrao Patwardhan to recover the amount that may be found due to her on taking accounts from the appellant and for an injunction to restrain the appellant from obstructing her in the enjoyment of the suit property.
467 of 1976.
D. Bad, S.B. Wad and Mrs. L Wad, for the appellant.
That appeal was filed by the appellant, Shankar Gopinath Apte, against the decree passed by the learned II Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Poona in Special Civil Suit No.
That finding was companyfirmed in appeal by the Collector but the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, allowing a revision applica tion filed by the appellant, differed from the companycurrent finding of fact recorded by the authorities below and held that the appellant was in possession of the lands as a tenant of the respondent.
R. Lalit, P.H. Parekh and Miss Manju Jetley for the respondent.
107 of 1968.
Thereafter, on December 4, 1972 the appellant filed an application in the trial companyrt for amendment of his written statement seeking leave to plead that he was in possession of the lands in part performance of an agreement of sale between himself and the respondent and that therefore he was entitled to defend his possession under section 53 A of the Transfer of Property Act.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD, J. This appeal by special leave arises out of an order dated February 6, 1975 of the Bombay High Court dismissing First Appeal No.
By his written statement dated October 16, 1968 the appellant raised various technical companytentions but his main defence to the suit was that he was in possession of the lands as a tenant of the respondent and in view of the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy Act, the Civil Court had numberjurisdiction to entertain the suit.
13 of 1975 summarily.
Nathuram, it appears, had companye to be in posses sion of the lands through one Motiram who was a tenant of the respondent but who was unable to meet his companymitments under the terms of the tenancy.
The rest of the income, according to the letter, was to be retained by the appellant for his honorarium.
