JUDGMENT :

Heard learned Counsel for the appellants and learned Counsel for the respondents.

2. The present appeal is filed being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 18/01/2003 passed by the learned Joint District Judge, Amravati in Regular Civil Appeal No.109/2000 confirming the judgment and decree dated 22/03/2000 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.82/1998 by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Morshi.

3. The brief of the appellants case is as under :

The father-in-law of the appellant No.1/original plaintiff No.1 namely Januji Babuji Bondarkar was cultivating the field Survey No.21 of Shri. Eknath Dinkar Chandurkar from 1950-1951 as a tenant of the said field. Accordingly, certificate of purchase issued to this effect on 21/03/1994 and registered sale-deed was executed by the Tahsildar on 22/03/1994. The father-in-law of the appellant No.1 got the absolute ownership and title of the suit field. But after death of Januji, his son namely Sitaram Januji Bondharkar being a legal representative got the title and possession of the suit field. Sitaram effected a family partition on 21/08/1997 and transferred the title and possession of the suit field in favour of the appellant Nos.1 to 4 who are the original plaintiff Nos.1 to 4. In view of partition by registered partition deed, the appellant/plaintiff got the absolute ownership and title of the suit field. The 7/12 extract statements are recorded in the name of father-in-law of the appellant No.1 as a cultivator of the suit field.

4. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 is having no concerned with an intention to obtain unlawful possession started to obstruct the possession of the appellants over the suit field and they have started causing obstructions first time on 01/07/1998, therefore appellant No. 1 filed a complaint to the Police Station Shirkhed and also issued notices to the respondent hence appellant constrained to file a suit for declaration and permanent injunction restraining the defendant for causing any obstruction. The learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division Morshi dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed the suit before the learned Appellate Court and learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal. Hence the appellant filed the present appeal.

5. This Court vide order dated 11/08/2003 framed following substantial question of law for consideration :

(a) Whether Civil Court have jurisdiction to decide who is the tenant of suit land after the issuance of purchase certificate Exh.79 under Rule 20 and Section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region and Kuchha area) Act 1958 in view of the guideline given by the Apex Court in case of Saraswati Tryambak Gaikwad Vs. Damodhar D. Motiwale reported in 2002 (3) Mah. Law Journal page 69.

(b) Whether the Civil Court or lower Appellate Court can sit as a Appellate Court to decide the issue of tenancy after the issuance of sale certificate.

(c) Whether the Civil Court or lower Appellate Court has jurisdiction to discard the sale certificate issued under Rule 20 and Section 43 of B.T. and A.L. Act, 1958 in favour of the father-in-law of the Januji.

(d) Whether the appeal if filed within a period of limitation.

6. It is the contention of the appellant that the sale certificate issued by the Agricultural Land Tribunal has been produced at Exh.79 and it positively shows that the ancestor of the plaintiffs; namely Januji was the holder of this property being acquired under B.T. and L.A. Act hence there was no difficulty for the learned Lower Courts to accept its sanctity. It is further contended that the submission made in Index No.2 has been prepared by the Sub Registrar on the basis of Exh. 79 and it corroborates with the contents of the appellant. It is further contended that after the death of januji, Sitaramji inherited the property and the Exh. Nos. 71 to 75 shows that partition was effected by Sitaram in respect of the suit property which has been effected by the Revenue Authorities