1968 (8) TMI 202 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the lease created on August 24, 1956, was vitiated by fraud.
2. Whether the defendants had become statutory owners of the suit lands under Section 32, Section 32-F, or Section 88(1) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act.
3. Whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to decide the question of tenancy and statutory ownership.
4. Whether the High Court was correct in referring the issue of tenancy to the Mamlatdar under Section 85-A of the Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Fraud in Lease Creation:
The first issue was whether the lease created on August 24, 1956, was vitiated by fraud. The plaintiff contended that the defendants conspired with the Collectorate staff to fraudulently obtain the lease. The High Court found that the plaintiff failed to establish fraud or misrepresentation. The High Court noted that the Collector was aware that no Co-operative Society existed and that the defendants were not members of any such society. The plaintiff and his personal guardian did not appear as witnesses to support the fraud allegation. Therefore, the High Court's view that the lease was not vitiated by fraud was upheld.

2. Statutory Ownership:
The second issue was whether the defendants had become statutory owners of the suit lands under Section 32, Section 32-F, or Section 88(1) of the Act. The Amending Act No. 13 of 1956, which came into force on August 1, 1956, excluded lands under the management of the Court of Wards from the application of Sections 1 to 87-A. The High Court found that the Court of Wards' management ceased on May 11, 1958, not on May 11, 1957, when the plaintiff attained majority. The defendants argued that they were tenants on April 1, 1957, and thus became statutory owners. However, the High Court found no valid lease was created on July 28, 1956, and the lease created on August 24, 1956, expired on May 31, 1957. Therefore, there was no subsisting tenancy on May 11, 1958, and the defendants failed to establish statutory ownership.

3. Jurisdiction of Civil Court:
The third issue was whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to decide the question of tenancy and statutory ownership. The defendants argued that under Section 70 of the Act, the question of tenancy was exclusively triable by a Revenue Court. The Court held that Section 70(b) imposes a duty on the Mamlatdar to decide whether a person is a tenant but does not extend to deciding past tenancy. The main issue was the claim of statutory ownership, which included determining past tenancy. The Court concluded that the Civil Court's jurisdiction was not barred by Section 70 or Section 85 of the Act.

4. Reference to Mamlatdar:
The fourth issue was whether the High Court was correct in referring the issue of tenancy to the Mamlatdar under Section 85-A of the Act. The High Court had rejected the defendants' claim of tenancy starting on July 28, 1956, and found no subsisting tenancy on May 11, 1958. The plaintiff argued that there was no plea of tenancy subsequent to May 11, 1958. The Court agreed, finding no independent plea of tenancy set up by the defendants for the date of the suit. Therefore, the High Court erred in referring the issue to the Mamlatdar and should have granted a decree to the plaintiff for recovery of possession, damages, and mesne profits as decreed by the trial court.

Conclusion:
Civil Appeal No. 312 of 1966 was allowed, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the trial court's decree. Civil Appeal No. 313 of 1966 was dismissed. The plaintiff was entitled to the costs of the Supreme Court, but no order was made regarding costs in the High Court. The defendants' application to produce additional evidence was rejected.