Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1
PETITIONER:
BAPU MAHADU MALI & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
VITHALRAO BHAUSAHEB DESHMUKH & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT02/11/1995
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
HANSARIA B.L. (J)
CITATION:
1995 SCC Supl. (4) 632 JT 1995 (8) 446
1995 SCALE (6)466
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We do not find any justification warranting
interference in this appeal.
The only point before the Revenue Tribunal and the High
Court was of the title. For valid reasons the contention was
rejected.
Admittedly, there was a suit for possession by the
rival reversioners. The appellants-landlords were the
defendants in the suit. The suit ended against the
landlords-appellants and thereby the title remained with the
other side of the reversioners. Since the respondents
remained in possession for more than 12 years they have
prescribed title by adverse possession. That apart, the
appellants’ having entered into a tenancy agreement with the
respondents they are estopped under Section 116 of the
Evidence Act to deny the title of the landlords. Having
these insurmountable difficulties in the way, Shri G.N.
Ganpule, learned senior counsel for the appellants,
contended that when a notice was issued to the appellants to
pay Nazrana after the abolition of wattan, the appellants
had paid the same and thereby became entitled to remain in
possession and Section 31 of the Bombay Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 has no application. This
contention was rejected by the appellate authorities
recording the finding that the respondents paid the Nazrana
but this finding was not canvassed either before the Revenue
Tribunal or the High Court. No clinching evidence has been
produced before us to show that the appellants had paid
Nazrana. The contention, therefore, has no substance.
The civil appeal is accordingly dismissed without
costs.