A. H. JOSHI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a second appeal filed by legal heirs of original defendant No. 1. The suit was decreed and the decree has been confirmed by the first appellate Court.

( 2 ) THE suit pertained to claim for delivery of possession of agricultural land survey Nos. 62 and 63/1 of Nimgavhan. It was suit by the original plaintiff madhaorao Laxmanrao Thakare on the basis of the claim that he is the owner of the suit property being the legal heir and adopted son of Ahilyabai who was widow of Laxmanrao Thakare.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the plaint, the suit lands were let out to the defendant No. 1 for the period upto 1-3-1957 and it is alleged that the defendant No. 1 sub-let survey No. 105/2 to the defendant No. 2 soon and after the lease period was over, the defendants re-delivered the suit lands in possession of the owner ahilyabai who thereafter cultivated the land personally. Thereafter Ahilyabai was dispossessed sometime at the end of April, 1957. Consequent upon the death of the original owner Ahilyabai, the plaintiff madhaorao Thakare became the owner and, therefore, filed suit for possession of the suit land and also claimed mesne profit.

( 4 ) THE defendant No. 1 contested the suit by filing the written statement and specifically admitted the lease of one year and further pleaded that he, however, continued to cultivate as tenant. As he claimed the tenancy, prayed for referring the dispute as to his status as tenant, to the Tenancy Court for adjudication. He also pleaded that he had become the owner of the suit land on tillers day.

( 5 ) THE defendant No. 2 having no interest in the suit property, did not appear and suit proceeded against him ex parte. At the trial, the trial Court framed the issue Nos. 1 and 2 pertaining to the adoption and its effect in view of the objections which also pertained to the adoption, while the other issues namely issue Nos. 3 to 7 pertain to plaintiffs right to recover possession in view of the alleged status of tenant on the basis of lease claimed by the defendant No. 1. Issue Nos. 8 and 8a to 8g pertainto the improvements, the mesne profits and other reliefs. The learned trial Court held all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and answered issues relating to plaintiffs right to get possession.

( 6 ) THE crucial question which was posed as main hindrance and the statutory objection to the claim for possession related to the issue of tenancy. The learned trial Court observed as regards tenancy at page 18 of print as follows :"so far as the question of tenancy is concerned this right is negatived to the Defendant up to the highest tribunal of our nation. The copy of order of M. R. T. is at Exh. 74. I have no jurisdiction to entertain this plea and therefore, in view of finding of competent Court, this issue is answered in negative. Though the plaintiff have failed to prove that Defendant took forcible possession in view of the order of M. R. T. Exh. 74 since he is not a tenant, his possession over suit land must be held to be illegal and therefore the plaintiff is entitled to get its possession from the defendants. "

( 7 ) THE judgment of M. R. T. is on record at Exh. 74 and is available for perusal. In that case, the defendant No. 1 had claimed that he had become owner on tillers day and had sought consequential declaration. He had succeeded in first two Courts, however, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, upon discrete examination, held that the case in question was one which was governed by the provisions of Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951, and held that under the said Act, a widow was under disability and lease did not result into creation of a tenancy and consequential statutory protection and tenancy and consequential ownership rights did not accrue or vest to or in the lessee and, therefore, negatived the defendant No. 1s claim as a tenant as well as his right to be a eclared owner. The decision of M. R. T. was delivered in revisional jurisdiction over the origi