A civil court has jurisdiction to declare an order of a tenancy court a nullity if it was passed without jurisdiction.

Headnote:
BOMBAY TENANCY ACT - SECTIONS 32G, 32F, 32P, 85 - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT - ENQUIRY UNDER SECTION 32G - SERVICE OF NOTICE - STATEMENT OF TENANT - VALIDITY OF ORDER - POSSESSION - LIMITATION.
Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff, a tenant of the defendant, was dispossessed of his land without a proper enquiry under section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. He filed a suit for permanent injunction and possession. The trial court granted him a decree, but the lower appellate court dismissed the suit, holding that the civil court had no jurisdiction to determine the validity of the order of the tenancy court.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the enquiry under section 32G was invalid because no notice was served on the plaintiff and his statement was not recorded. The order passed by the tenancy court was therefore a nullity and the civil court had jurisdiction to declare it so. The plaintiff was entitled to possession of the land.
Issues: 1. Whether the enquiry under section 32G was valid. 2. Whether the civil court had jurisdiction to determine the validity of the order of the tenancy court. 3. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to possession of the land.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The enquiry under section 32G was invalid because no notice was served on the plaintiff and his statement was not recorded. The order passed by the tenancy court was therefore a nullity. 2. The civil court had jurisdiction to declare the order of the tenancy court a nullity because it was passed without jurisdiction. 3. The plaintiff was entitled to possession of the land because the order dispossessing him was a nullity.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed and the decree of the trial court was restored.

JUDGMENT-This second appeal is by the plaintiff. The learned Assistant Judge, Satara, by his judgment and decree dated 18th August 1970 allowed the defendant's appeal, set aside the decree passed by the trial Court and dismissed the plaintiff's suit with costs.

2. At all times material, the plaintiff was the tenant of Sundrabai, the originallst defendant, in respect of 9 pieces of agricultural lands within the limits of village Nidhal, Taluka Khatav, District Satara. Sundrabai was a widow-landlady. She died after the .suit was dismissed and her heirs prosecuted the civil appeal. Defendant No.2, a relative of Sundrabai, falsely claimed that he. was cultivating the suit lands on behalf of defendant No. 1. Defendant No.2 also is one of the heirs of defendant No.1 in the civil appeal. Defendant No.3 has no part to play in the present litigation, but he is also one of the heirs of Sundrabai. The plaintiff's case is that he has been illegally possessed of the suit lands on 9th March 1966 without holding a proper enquiry under section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter called as "Bombay Tenancy Act"), and without following the provisions of the said Act governing the case of a widow landlady and her tenant. After he was dispossessed, he came to know that the Agricultural Lands Tribunal (hereinafter described as “A.L.T.") had held an enquiry under section 32G. The notice of the enquiry was served upon his brother and after recording his brother's statement, the purchase of the suit lands was declared ineffective. This was followed by an order dated 20th September 1961 for handing over possession of the suit lands to Sundrabai, but possession was not taken for nearly 41 years. On 9th March 1966, Kabje Patti, Ex. 82, was purported to be executed and it was falsely stated therein that there, was no crop and possession was taken from the plaintiff and delivered to Sundrabai without any objection. It was also stated in Ex. 82 that on one of the suit lands, crop of onion, brinjal and garlic was grown arid that the plaintiff was absent at the time of the delivery of possession. The plaintiff contended that possession was taken without intimation to him. He also alleged that Sundrabai and her relative Tukaram-defendant No.2 in collusion with the Talathi got mutation entry No. 4428 made as of 9th March 1966 on the strength of the Kabje Patti, Ex. 82, without notice to him. When the plaintiff became aware of all these facts, he filed Tenancy Appeal No. 219 of 1966 against the order dated 20th September 1961 of the A. L. T. No. II, Khatav, in the Court of the Assistant Collector, Phaltan Division. The appellate Court issued stay order dated 19th August 1966. Tukaram-defendant No.2 filed Criminal Case No. 313 of 1966 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vaduj, against the family members of the plaintiff under sections 447, 504, 323 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code in. respect of the suit lands and falsely alleged that he was cultivating the suit lands on behalf of Sundrabai. The plaintiff filed the present suit on 16th January 1967 for permanent injunction. Thereafter, the plaintiff amended the plaint and alleged that the defendants had forcibly dispossessed him after the filing of the present suit and prayed for possession.

3. Sundrabai contended that the suit lands were in her actual Vahivat as owner and that the plaintiff's allegations in respect of his tenancy were entirely false. The suit for permanent injunction was not maintainable as the plaintiff had no Vahivat in the suit lands. According to her, notice was served according to say but the plaintiff did not remain present on the date of the said enquiry and in the result, his purchase of the suit lands was declared ineffective by the A. L. T. The plaintiff was permanently residing in Bombay. He is a member of joint family and his younger brother Narayan looked after the family lands in the village. Narayan was present at the time o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document