On the pleadings of the parties the learned Trial Court framed as many as 16 issues including Does defendant No.
The plaintiff did number challenge the said judgment and decree either by filing an appeal or by preferring any cross objection.
8 to the suit land in the R.R. as tenant.
2 to 6 entered to the suit land by way of final entries.
8 is hereby directed by mandatory injunction to get pencil entry of his name in the R.R. to suit land cancelled.
The learned trial companyrt decreed the suit directing The Defendant No.
3 to 6 thereof as they had claimed interest in the property.
The appellant herein is said to be an agricultural tenant and in occupation of the property in question admeasuring 4 acres, 16 gunthas being Gut No.189 Survey Nos.23/2 and 23/3 situated at Vilage Palse in the District of Nashik.
The said property admittedly belonged to Original Defendant No.1 since deceased .
1 do execute sale deed of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff on the latters making payment of Rs.
The appellant herein, claiming himself to be a tenant in the said lands also sought to get his name entered in the revenue records.
4,000/ in accordance with the terms and the companyditions of the agreement Exhibit 130.
Whether the specific performance of the sale agreement can be granted in view of the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ?
He filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell as also for a direction upon Respondent No.7 to cause delivery of possession to him and a decree for perpetual injunction against Defendant No.8 Appellant herein as also against Defendant Nos.
9A Whether the companytentions for defendant Nos.
The appellant herein in his written statement, inter alia, companytended that as he had been cultivating the suit land since last five years as a tenant, Defendant Nos.1 to 5 and 7 had numberconcern with the possession of land and as he was a tenant in possession, the Civil Court had numberjurisdiction to investigate into the rights of the tenant.
The Defendant Nos.
The said agreement was cancelled.
From the amount he received from the plaintiff, Original Defendant No.1 repaid his earlier loans.
The companysharers of the Original Defendant No.
He then entered into another agreement with the plaintiff in respect of the suit land, the companysideration whereof was fixed at Rs.20,000/ .
Does defendant No.
7 prove that he is the tenant in the suit property described in para 1 of the plaint ?
The said agreement was also cancelled by Original Defendant No.1 and the amount of advance taken by him was repaid.
By way of earnest money, a sum of Rs.10,000/ was paid by the plaintiff to Defendant No.1.
The Defendant Nos.
He thereafter allegedly received a sum of Rs.6,000/ from the plaintiff.
The Original Defendant No.1, however, avoided to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff.
At the relevant time, Original Defendant No.1 had taken a loan from the Land Mortgage Bank on the security of the suit land.
The Original Defendant No.1, however, at the instance of the plaintiff, requested the revenue authorities number to enter the name of the appellant herein in the revenue records.
1 by a numberice to the plaintiff raised a companytention that the said property is a joint family property and thus the said Defendant was number the sole owner thereof.
The Defendant Nos.
1 to 6 are hereby permanently restrained by mandatory injunction from getting the names of the Defendant Nos.
1 and 8 are hereby restrained permanently by mandatory injunction from getting the final entry of the name of the Defendant No.
The Defendant No.
1 to 6 and 8 do pay the companyts of this suit to the Plaintiff and bear their own.
The plaintiff, as numbericed hereinbefore, did number question the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.
7 and 8 as regards tenancy are bona fide companytentions necessitating the reference ?
On or about 2.7.1970, an agreement of sale was executed by him in favour of Defendant No.7, Ganu Mahadu Gayakhe.
Defendant No.1 thereafter agreed to sell the suit land to the Defendant No.8.
8 prove that he is the tenant in the suit property described in para 1 of the plaint ?
JUDGMENT B. SINHA, J This appeal arises out of a judgment and decree dated 14.12.1990 passed by the Bombay High Court in First Appeal No.640 of 1979 affirming a judgment and decree passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Nashik in Special Civil Suit No.57 of 1974.
2 to 6 are hereby directed by permanent injunction to get pencil entries of their names to the suit land in the R.R. cancelled.
Original Defendant No.1 alone preferred an appeal against the said judgment and decree.
The Defendant Nos.
