JUDGMENT - (1) This revision application was referred first to a Division Bench by Mr. Justice Chandrachud and the Division Bench referred it to a Full Bench, because they found that there was some conflict between two decisions of two Division Benches on the question as to the proper construction of Section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act read with Section 85 thereof.

(2) The matter arose out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs alleging that the plaintiffs and the sole defendant were co-tenants of a field bearing Survey No. 139, but on 20-6-1962 the defendant obstructed the plaintiffs cultivation contending that he had been declared the purchaser of the field by the Tenancy Court after the tillers day under the said Act. The plaintiffs case was that the decision to declare the defendant as the purchaser tenant was taken behind their back and without hearing them, and that they should have been declared the purchasers along with the defendant. The plaintiffs alleged in the suit that they were in possession and claimed an injunction against the defendant restraining him from interfering with their possession. The defendant on his part alleged that he was the sole

Click Here to Read the rest of this document