JUDGMENT :

Bharati H. Dangre, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, Appeal is taken up for final hearing.

2. The present Appeal filed by the Appellant questions the legality of the judgment dated 29/02/2016 delivered by the Principal District Judge, Raigad, Alibag in Civil Appeal No. 91 of 2009. By the said judgment, the Principal District Judge has allowed the Appeal filed by Ramji Devasthan Trust and has set aside the judgment dated 02/05/2009 delivered by the 3rd Civil Judge, Junior Division, Panvel in Regular Civil Suit No. 132 of 2004. As a consequence of the said judgment dated 29/02/2016, the suit filed by the Devasthan for possession of the suit land is decreed and the Defendant (the Appellant) is directed to hand over vacant possession of the suit land by removing the structure at its own costs, within one month from the date of the said judgment.

3. The necessary facts leading to the present verdict can be briefly summarized as under:

Ramji Devasthan Trust, a Registered Trust filed Regular Civil Suit No. 132 of 2004 claiming possession of the suit property. In the said suit, the claim set out was to the effect that the said Trust is a Public Trust registered with the Charity Commissioner, Raigad. The suit property is the one located at Mauje Apte, Plot No. 126, Hissa No. 0 and the Trust has obtained the necessary certificate under Section 88B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. It was pleaded that the suit land was entrusted to the Defendant as a tenant and, in terms of the Tenancy Act, the Defendant was paying the rent. The tenancy was annual, beginning on 1st April every year and coming to an end on 31st March on the next year. The plaint further proceeded to state that as the Trust was not able to cater to its expenses, the details of which were stated in the plaint, a decision was taken to terminate the tenancy and to put the land assigned to the Defendant for the benefit of the Trust. The notice was issued to the Defendant on 10/09/2003 informing that from 31/03/2004, the tenancy rights have ceased to exist and seeking possession of the land. Failure to comply, constrained the Plaintiff to institute the suit.

4. The Defendant contested the claim as stated in the plaint; admitting that the Trust was a Registered Trust, a specific denial was made to the plea that exemption was sought in respect of the suit land from operation of Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act by obtaining a certificate under Section 88(i) of the Act. On the contrary, it was pleaded that the Defendant was cultivating the suit land and was paying the rent to the land owner. The mutation entries in favour of Ganpat Chougule and his wife Venubai G. Chougule were relied upon to state that the suit land never belonged to the Devasthan.

5. The Court of original Fora i.e. Civil Judge, Junior Division framed the issues. The first issue being framed; Whether the Plaintiff has established that the suit land is owned by the Trust came to be answered in the negative. The second issue as to whether the Plaintiff has proved that the suit land has been exempted from the operation of Section 32G has also been answered in the negative. The issue as to whether the Plaintiff is entitled for possession came to be answered in the negative. The issue as to whether the Defendant had proved that he is the legal heir of the erstwhile tenant and, therefore, entitled for cultivation of the suit land came to be answered in the affirmative. On answering the issues against the Devasthan, the suit came to be dismissed.

6. The Certificate granted under Section 88B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 which was relied upon by the Plaintiff to be the exclusive evidence for being the owner of the suit land did not find much weightage with the learned Civil Judge since he recorded a finding that in the proceedings in which the Certificate was obtained, the Defendant was not impleaded as a par