T.V. Nalawade, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard both sides for final disposal by consent.

2. The first two proceedings (Writ Petition Nos. 1411/2014 and 1432/2014) are filed to challenge the orders made by the Tenancy Court and the appellate authorities like the order of the Tahsildar Paithan dated 30.11.2009, the order of the appellate authority, Sub Divisional Officer given in Appeal No. 3/2011 and the order of the revisional authority – M.R.T. (Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad) in Revision No. 61-B-2012. The Tahsildar, Tenancy Court, has given direction to issue ownership certificate under the provision of Section 38(6) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in favour respondent No. 1 Pandharinath Borude (now deceased and represented by his legal representatives). It is the case of the petitioners of the present two petitions who are brothers of Pandharinath that all the brothers of Pandharinath are entitled to get the certificate under section 38(6) of the Act as successors of the father Gopinath, who was inducted as tenant in the suit lands by the owner.

3. The disputed property consists of two portions of agricultural lands bearing Gat No. 19 (old Survey No. 6) to the extent 10 acres and Gat No. 123 (Old Survey No. 53) to the extent of 11 acres situated at village Dinnapur, Tahsil Paithan, District Aurangabad. One Madhavrao Khatik was the owner of these two lands and respondent Nos. 3-A to 3B-II-b are the successors of Madhavrao. Gopinath, father of Pandharinath was cultivating entire area of these lands on Batai basis from prior to the year 1955. Name of Gopinath was entered in the revenue record as tenant and as per crop cultivation column he was in possession till his death. He died in the year 1957.

4. Gopinath left behind four sons, viz. Murlidhar, Pandharinath, Vishwanath and Dashrath. One Rangnath was eldest son of Gopinath but he had died prior to the death of Gopinath. The present matters involve only four sons of Gopinath. Petitioner No. 1 of the first proceeding, respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 4 of the first proceeding are the sons of Gopinath. Heirs of other deceased son were on the record during the hearing of the proceeding.

5. It is the case of the petitioners of the first two proceedings that Murlidhar was the second son of Gopinath but as Murlidhar was simpleton person, after the death of Gopinath, Pandharinath gave report to the revenue authority and got entered his name in the revenue record as tenant but his name was entered as successor of Gopinath and his name was entered for the joint Hindu family consisting of all the successors of Gopinath. It is the case of these petitioners that the owner Madhavrao Khatik died prior to 1959 and he was succeeded by his two widows like Sunderabai and Anusaya. It appears that Sunderabai had no issue and she bequeathed her property to her brother Limba Garad who was on the record. Limba died during pendency and his legal representatives are brought on the record. Sunderabai died in the year 1967, Ansabai died in the year 1971 and her heirs are already on the record who are two daughters.

6. It is the case of the petitioners of the first two proceedings that during her life time, prior to 1959, Sunderabai had started proceeding under section 44 read with section 32 of the Act for possession of the entire area of two lands. It is contended that after the death of Sunderabai, the proceeding was prosecuted by Limba Garad in view of the will executed in his favour but Limba could not succeed in the said proceeding and the proceeding came to be dismissed The said decision became final in the year 1984.

7. It is the case of the petitioners that as Gopinath was in possession of these lands as tenant till his death, till the year 1957 and as all his sons had become tenants, due to the provisions of the law, and as they were in possession of the lands, they were entitled to purchase th