( 1 ) THIS is second appeal of original defendant No. 1 against judgment of First Appellate Court whereby partition decree is granted against him.

( 2 ) THE subject-matter of dispute is agricultural land which originally bore Survey no. 721/1. It is now consolidated and renumbered as Gat No. 1613, admeasuring 8 hectare 35-R, situated at Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar.

( 3 ) THERE is no dispute about the fact that the suit land was owned by one Dinkar govind Deshpande. There is also no dispute about the fact that father of deceased appellant, namely, Abu @ Aba Rama Rade was a protected tenant in possession of the suit land in 1947-48. He died somewhere in 1950. There is no dispute about the fact that certificate under section 32-G of the bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands act, 1948, was issued in the appellant's name and he was recognized as statutory owner of the suit land.

( 4 ) THE following pedigree table would depict relations between the parties.

( 5 ) THE original plaintiffs are representatives of the branch of deceased Maruti. He was one of the son amongst four sons of deceased Abu @ Aba rama Rade. They alleged that the suit land was being cultivated by deceased Abu as Karta (Manager) of the joint hindu family. They further averred that after his death in 1950, the members of the joint Hindu family continued to cultivate the suit land as joint tenants. They alleged that after demise of Maruti, somewhere in 1955, original defendant No. 1 -Bhima ousted them and refused to give any share in the agricultural income of the suit land. They sought separate 1/5th share in the suit land.

( 6 ) THE suit was resisted only by deceased defendant No. 1 (appellant ). He denied that the suit land was being cultivated by himself and other brothers as joint tenants. He asserted that the suit land was being exclusively cultivated by him and he alone was the tenant thereof. He further asserted that he is declared as statutory owner of the suit land. He contended that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain suit wherein partition of tenanted land is sought. He further pleaded that the properties of the joint Hindu family were partitioned before about 25 years of the suit and husband of plaintiff, namely, maruti was allotted separate land which was alienated by the latter in favour of one Bajirao baban Ohol in or about 1964. In short, he alleged that the branch of the plaintiffs had separated way back and cannot claim any right, what-so-ever, in respect of the suit land which is exclusively acquired by him as per provisions of section 32-G of the Bombay tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ("b. T. and A. L. Act" for short ).

( 7 ) THE parties went to trial over certain issues framed by the trial Court at Exh. 21. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to establish existence of any right to claim partition. The trial Court held that the suit land was not jointly owned by deceased Maruti and other brothers including defendant No. 1-Bhima and could not be regarded as property of the joint Hindu family. The trial Court accepted defence of defendant no. 1-Bhima. The trial Court dismissed the suit. On appeal preferred by the original plaintiffs, the First Appellate Court reversed findings of the trial Court and decreed the suit for partition and separate possession.

( 8 ) THE following substantial questions of law were formulated while admitting the appeal.

(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the first appellate Court was right in holding that deceased defendant No. 1-Bhima had not became exclusive statutory owner in respect of the suit land though he alone paid the price fixed by the Mamlatdar and the tenancy certificate was issued only in his name?

(ii) Whether the surrender of tenancy by deceased Abu Rama Rade is duly proved by the defendants and as such, subsequent individual tenancy rights of deceased defendant No. 1-Bhima could be recognised by the first