JUDGMENT

CHANDRACHUD, J.:—This appeal by special leave arises out of an order dated February 6, 1975 of the Bombay High Court dismissing First Appeal No. 13 of 1975 summarily. That appeal was filed by the appellant, Shankar Gopinath Apte, against the decree passed by the learned II Joint Civil Judge, Senior Divison, Poona in Special Civil Suit No. 107 of 1968. That suit was filed by the respondent, Gangabai Hariharrao Patwardhan to recover the amount that may be found due to her on taking accounts from the appellant and for an injunction to restrain the appellant from obstructing her in the enjoyment of the suit property. Alternatively, the respondent prayed for a decree for possession of the suit lands.

2. The suit property consists of 3 agricultural lands bearing Survey Nos. 98/1-1, 98/1-2 and 99, admeasuring in all 54 acres and 20 gunthas. The lands are situated in a village called Kiwale in Pune district.

3. These lands belonged originally to the respondents husband who died on February 20, 1960 leaving her as his sole heir. On December 29, 1961 a power of attorney was prepared for being executed by the respondent in favour of Western India Trustee and Executor Co. Ltd., Satara. The object of the power of attorney, as expressed therein, was inter alia, to authorize the Company to collect the income of the land and to take steps for disposing of the land by sale. But for some reason or the other the document remained unexecuted. On February 1, 1963 the respondent executed a power of attorney in favour of the appellant. The true nature of this document and its real purpose are both in dispute but ex facie, the document was to be effective for a period of one year and was executed in order to enable the appellant to manage the respondents lands and to arrange to cultivate them. By a letter dated March 3, 1963 addressed to the respondent, the appellant agreed to undertake the duties specified in the power of attorney and to pay to her a sum of Rs. 2,000 annually from the net income of the lands. The rest of the income, according to the letter, was to be retained by the appellant for his "honorarium."

4. Within two or three weeks of the execution of the power of attorney, the appellant, succeeded in obtaining possession of the lands from one Nathuram Agarwal on payment of a sum of Rupees 9,300. Nathuram, it appears, had come to be in possession of the lands through one Motiram who was a tenant of the respondent but who was unable to meet his commitments under the terms of the tenancy. The appellant continued in possession of the property from year to year on payment, at intervals, of the agreed sum of Rs. 2,000 per annum. On January 1, 1967 the appellants name, on an application made by him, was entered in the record of rights as a tenant of the respondent. In February, 1968 appellant gave a notice to the respondent under Section 32-O of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act stating that, being a tenant of the lands, he had acquired a statutory right to purchase the lands and that he was willing to exercise that right. Respondent disputed the appellants claim by her reply of February 26 and after an exchange of further notices, respondent filed the present suit on May 3, 1968.

5. By his written statement dated October 16, 1968 the appellant raised various technical contentions but his main defence to the suit was that he was in possession of the lands as a tenant of the respondent and in view of the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy Act, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The appellant contended that the power of attorney was executed by the respondent in his favour solely in order to enable him to obtain possession of the lands from Nathuram and that, otherwise, it was a sham document, a mere cloak for inducting him on the land by evicting an unauthorized occupant.

6. Several issues were struck by the trial Court on these pleadings but it is only necessary to State at this stage that since the main is