He held that the plaintiff were the deemed purchasers of the land on 1.4.1959 and he also came to the companyclusion that the transfer by Mahadu in favour of Patel was hit by the provisions of section 43 of the Tenancy Act.
Patel thereupon filed a revision before the Revenue Tribunal which set aside the order of the authorities below and held that the sale deed by Mahadu in favour of respondent number1 was number invalid under the provision of the Act.
Subsequently, proceedings were initiated by The Tahsildar under section 32G of the Tenancy Act.
This was sometime in 1969 and will be referred to later.
In the meanwhile, the petitioner, one of the sons of Rau, had instituted a suit against Patel for an injunction restraining him from obstructing his possession of the property, Patel resisted the suit claiming to be the purchaser of share of Mahadu and, therefore, entitled to remain in possession as a companyowner alongwith the petitioner.
After discussing the questions whether the tenants were in lawful possession of the suit land, whether they were entitled to purchase the suit land and whether the purchase price fixed in the voluntary sale between Prabhu and Raus fourth son was reasonable and whether the sale effected between the landlord and tenants companyld be regularised, the Tahsildar decided to regularise the purchase of the suit land by the tenants, and directed that a certificate under section 32M read with section 43 of the Act should be issued to the tenants Dadu Rau and his brothers.
In the meantime, on 27.4.1961, the landlord Prabhu had decided to sell the suit land to the fourth son of Rau, who effected a partition of the property and Mahadu, one of the other sons of Rau, sold his share in the suit land in favour of the present respondent Patel by registered document dated May 11,1966.
His order was passed on 21.12.1969.
In view of the rival companytentions of the parties, the civil companyrt referred the following two issues for determination of the tenancy authorities as companytemplated by provisions of section 85A of the Act Was the plaintiff a tenant of the suit property and did he subsequently become its deemed purchaser Is the sale deed by Mahadu to Patel invalid under the Act?
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.9.1978 of the Bombay High Court in S.C.A. No.
This order was companyfirmed in appeal, on 23.10.71, by the Assistant Collector.
In the proceedings before the revenue authorities, the Tahsildar answered both questions in the affirmative.
He came to the companyclusion that the sale effected by Mahadu in favour of Patel, being companytrary to law, was illegal and directed that his name should be removed from the revenue records.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
In the companyrse of his order, he also discussed the alleged sale in respect of Patel, on whom numberice had been served and who had participated in the proceedings.
V. Deshpande for the Respondent.
According to him, therefore, Patel had numberright of title to the portion of the land in suit which Mahadu had sold him.
These proceedings came to an end eventually by an order dated 24.5.1961, on which date the petition under section 29 read with section 31 was dismissed.
2407 N of 1979.
N.Ganpule, Ashok K. Singh, Ms. Punam Kumari and Ms. Wahi, before the Appellants.
In view of this, the proceedings under section 32G, initiated by the Tahsildar, came to an end with and order of the Tahsildar declaring the fourth son of Rau as the purchaser.
During the pendency of these proceedings, Rau died and his tenancy rights were inherited by his four sons, Dadu predecessor of the present appellants , Mahadu, Ganpati and Shripati.
The Judtgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATHAN, J. This is an appeal from a judgement of the Bombay High Court dismissing a petition filed by Dadu Rau Yelavade number represented by his legal representatives under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
993 of 1974.
One Anant Gopal Prabhu Prabhu for short was the owner of 3 acres 25 gunthas of land bearing Survey No.
The lands were under the cultivation of one Rau, who was the father of the petitioner before the High Court.
54 in village Ingali in Hatakanangale Taluka of Kolhapur district.
