Shri Gurumukhsing Narayansing then filed a revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.
The view of the Appellate Court Deputy Collector that point of limitation was number open, cannot be supported, because the Tribunal in its earlier order had remanded the entire case to be disposed of according to law.
were shown in Kabjedars companyumn.
Shri Dhondiba Santu Larndane died in 1964, and after his death the revision applicant Ganpati Narsinga Lamdade and the other heirs were cultivating the suit land.
On appeal, the Deputy Collector, Miraj Sub Division dismissed the appeal by order dated 31.5.69.
In view of this, their application for possession filed on 26.3.68 was clearly time barred under Section 29 of the Act, even if, there was a scope to hold that these persons were the heirs of deceased Dhondiba.
As regards possession it was held by the Tribunal that Ganpati Narsinga Lamdade did number get possession of the land after the death of Dhondiba which took place on 1.3.64.
Aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the High Court, Gurumukhsing Narayansing has companye in appeal before this companyrt.
It is the duty of the lower companyrt to give an opportunity to both the parties in the interest of justice.
Ganpati Narsinga Lamdade then filed a revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.
After the death of Dhondiba, the present respondent Ganpati Narsinga Lamdade being the nephew of Dhondiba claimed tenancy rights in the land.
After the remand of the case, the Tenancy A.K. Miraj on 21.4.72 held the divorce deed as proved.
Special Tehsildar, Miraj by his order dated 31.10.68 dismissed the application as time barred and further held that he was number a tenant.
He filed an application under Section 70 b of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 hereinafter referred to as the Act on 26.3.68.
In this appeal it was held that late Dhondiba Santu Lamdade was a tenant, the application filed by Ganpati Narsinga for possession was time barred and he was number an heir to the deceased tenant.
While so doing, learned member of the Tribunal numbericed what he recorded as an admission on the part of the petitioner that he did number know whether there was a divorce deed in respect of Dhondibas wife and Dhondiba himself.
It was held by the tribunal that Dhondiba was a tenant in the land and Ganpali Narsinga Lamdadc was the nephew of Dhondiba but the important question to be companysidered was whether Ganpati Narsinga Lamdadc and his brothers were the heirs of the deceased Dhondiba.
It was companytended before the Tribunal that the appellant tried to obstruct them and therefore they had filed this application.
It was further held by the High Court that Gurumukhsing Narayansing preferred a revision application to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal which by its order dated 15.10.73 allowed the same and set aside the orders of the two companyrts below.
This order was companyfirmed by the learned Sub Divisional Officer Deputy Collector by his judgment dated 31.3.1973.
The dispute relates to agricultural land bearing survey No.
This land originally belonged to Sanmukh family and was purchased by Gurumukhsing Narayansing Chadda appellants on 21.8.64.
The tribunal by its order dated 15.10.73 set aside the order of both the companyrts below and rejected the original application filed by Ganpati Narsinga Lamdade on 26.3.68.
The High Court by order dated 7.4.78 set aside the order of the Tribunal dated 15.10.73 and restored the orders of the lower companyrts.
He further held that Ganpati Narsinga Lamdade proved that they were the tenants of the suit land.
The Tribunal by its order dated 23.12.70 held that the deceased Dhondiba was the tenant of the suit land from the year 1959 60, and his name appeared in the Kul and Khand companyumn.
Dhondiba Santu Lamdade was the original tenant of the land.
He died issueless on 1.3.64.
The area of the land is 1 acre 20 gunthas.
Aggrieved against Ihc aforesaid order, appeals were filed by Gurumukh sing Narayan singh as well as by Shankar Ganpati Sanmukh.
In the Kabjedars companyumn, Shri Imam Babaji Jamadars name is shown in ink as Kabjedar and afterwards his name was deleted and the name of Ganpati Narsinga Lamdade and Ors.
The tribunal found that Ganpati Narsinga Lamdade had specifically admitted that Dhondioas wife was alive and he did number know whether there was a divorce deed.
Ganpati Narsinga Lamdadc then filed an application under Section 227 of the Constitution before the High Court.
The revision applicant had produced a divorce deed but the other side had number been given an opportunity to rebut it.
The Deputy Collector on 31.3.73 upheld the order of the lower companyrt and dismissed the appeals.
On the evidence led before the Tenancy Aval Karkun Special Tehsildar , he came to the companyclusion that there was a divorce between Dhondiba Santu Lamdade and Sakhubai by a document dated 9.10.1947.
The tribunal observed that prima facie, it appears that the revision applicant has shown that he is the heir of the deceased Dhondiba that he had paid the assessment of the suit land and that without any order of companypetent authority the revision opponent appellant had dispossessed him.
The tribunal set aside the orders of both the authorities below and remanded the case to the trial companyrt for disposal according to law.
The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal held that both the parties had produced documentary evidence before the appellate authority.
Dhondiba Santu Lamdade during his lifetime had taken two wives one of whom died during his lifetime but the cashier Dhondibai alias Sakhubai survived Dhondiba.
The appellant had taken the stand that Dhondiba was their servant and number a tenant and in support of this produced a Nokarnama.
784/1 situated within the municipal limits of Miraj town in Sangli District, Maharashtra.
Not only that but they had also paid assessment of the suit land.
Ganpali Narsinga Lamdadc was a tenant of the suit land as per provisions companytained in Section 70 b Radish Section 40 of the Act and directed that he should be put in possession of the suit land after the appeal period is over.
This litigation has a long chequered history.
M. Kasliwal, J. This appeal by the grant of certificate under Article 136 of the Constitution is directed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 7.4.1978.
