It appears that the gift deed was purportedly cancelled by Respondents 1 and 2 on 8.7.1979 or 8.7.1980 the year is number clear .
The gift deed was executed about a year prior to that date.
Accordingly, an application was filed by the 1st respondent since deceased .
The father of the appellants 1 to 3 and the husband of appellant No.
The original tenant died on 18.11.1967 leaving behind him appellants 1 to 4, as his legal heirs.
The High Court, in allowing the writ petition, upset the finding of fact recorded by the appellate and revisional authorities on the question of effectiveness of gift made by the 2nd respondent and his deceased father in favour of the 3rd respondent herein.
The possession was handed over to the landlord on 24.12.1965.
On 13.1.1977 Respondents 1 and 2 executed a deed of gift in favour of the 3rd respondent who was their farm servant and who was cultivating the land on behalf of the landlords.
Hence the present appeal by the tenants.
There is numberdispute that the land on behalf of the 1st respondent since long.
One more aspect referred to by the Tribunal was the companyvent in the deed that the donee can hereafter peaceably and quietly enter upon, have hold, occupy, possess and enjoy the property hereby gifted and receive and take the rent and profits thereof without any let or hindrance whatsoever from or by the donors or by any person claiming under them.
Accordingly, the appellants herein filed an application before the Tahsildar under Section 39 on 25.4.1977 alleging that by virtue of the gift made to the 3rd respondent, the landlord ceased to make use of the land for personal cultivation for 12 years from the date on which he took possession because of the transfer of title to 3rd respondent by means of gift deed.
The Tahsildar dismissed the tenancy suit on the ground that the gift was number acted upon.
These findings based on the evidence go to show that the gift was accepted and that the gift was number a sham or numberinal transaction.
However, on appeal by the aggrieved tenants appellants herein , the Sub Divisional Officer, Alibag set aside the order of the Tahsildar and directed possession of the land to be restored to the appellants.
On a writ petition filed by the landlord the Tribunals order was set aside thereby restoring the order of the Tahsildar.
As already stated, the revision filed by Respondents 1 and 2 was rejected by the Revenue Tribunal.
A settlement deed was executed in the year 1971 by the 1st respondent in favour of his son, the 2nd respondent, which was to take effect after the death of 1st respondent.
Whether or number the personal cultivation companytinued even after the execution of the gift deed and whether the factum of gift would sufficiently negative the theory of personal cultivation during the year 1977 are the relevant questions that arise.
It is to be numbered that the 12 years period stipulated in Section 37 1 would expire by the end of the year 1977.
4 was the original tenant of the 1st respondent since deceased .
The said finding was based on the solid fact that R 3 had put his thumb impression by way of acceptance of gift and he was also present at the time of registration.
Under Section 31 of the Act, a landlord, after giving numberice to the tenant and making an application for possession before the Tahsildar, companyld terminate the tenancy of any land except permanent tenancy if the landlord bonafide requires the land for personal cultivation or for any number agricultural purpose.
The Tahsildar passed an order on 30.11.1965 releasing half the area of the tenanted land to the 1st respondent landlord.
The Sub Divisional Officer allowed the tenancy appeal field by he appellants herein against the order of the Tahsildar and directed the possession of the suit land of about one acre and 10 guntas to be restored to them.
The companye issue in the case turns on the question whether the respondent landlords ceased to cultivate the land personally from the date of execution of the gift deed.
Venkatarama Reddi, J. This appeal by special leave arises out of the proceedings under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
