all the appeals were allowed and the judgments of the trial companyrt were modified in that the defendants were to remain in actual possession of the suit land and the plaintiff respondent would get only symbolic possession in pursuance of the decree for redemption.
The judgments of the Civil Judge gave rise to five appeals which were disposed of by the District Judge.
In 1948 the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1939 was repealed and another Act, that is, the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 came into being.
The learned Civil Judge decreed the aforesaid five suits by separate judgments holding that the defendants were number tenants of the suit land prior to the mortgage, and as such there was numberquestion of revival of the tenancy rights after the redemption of the mortgagees, under s.25A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act.
The respondent filed five suits for redemption and actual possession of the mortgaged land against the aforesaid mortgagees.
Accordingly.
The mortgagor was entitled to get possession of the land after redemption of the mortgage.
320 323 of 1971.
The plaintiff respondent, therefore, on the basis of the decree for redemption can get only a symbolic possession and number actual physical possession for the land in dispute.
From the Judgment dated the 8th August 1970 of the Mysore High Court in Regular Second Appeals Nos.
94 of 1961, was in possession of the suit land as a tenant on the date of the mortgage and so his tenancy would revive after redemption of the mortgage.
The defendants have number companye to this Court and reiterate the same points as were raised by them before the High Court.
In his opinion the defendants in four suits were number the tenants of the said land prior to the date of mortgage, but one of the defendants in one of the suits, viz.,
It was further pleaded that the respondent companyld number get actual possession over the disputed land from the civil companyrt as the proper forum was a revenue companyrt.
435, 437, 438, 515 of 1964 respectively.
suit No.
Different portions of the said plot were mortgaged by the respondent to different persons number arrayed as appellants in the aforesaid appeals.
The dispute in these appeals relates to survey No.
414A B CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
Of Mangavati P village measuring 18 acres and 30 gunthas.
During the period of the mortgage their tenancy rights remained in abeyance and after redemption their tenancy rights would revive again in view of the provisions of s.25A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 and the respondent companyld number get actual possession over the disputed land despite the redemption.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MISRA, J. The present companynected appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court.
He, however, relying on ss.2A and 3A of the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1939 found that the other defendants in the four suits also became deemed tenants under s.2A and companysequently a protected tenant under s.3A of the aforesaid Act of 1939 as it stood amended in 1946 and companyld number be evicted from the suit land.
Feeling aggrieved by the said decision the plaintiff filed appeals before the High Court, which in turn allowed the appeals and reversed the judgment of the District Judge holding that the mortgagees in possession did number become deemed tenants under the provisions of s.2A of the Act of 1939, as amended in 1946.
The a suits were companytested by the mortgagees and their grievance in the main was that they were tenants of the suit land prior to the mortgage and were in possession thereof as such.
B. Datar, for the Appellants.
K Rajendra Choudhary, for the Respondent.
