Mali & Ors Vs. Vithalrao Bhausaheb Deshmukh & Anr  INSC 615 (2 November 1995)
K. Ramaswamy, K. Hansaria B.L. (J)
1995 SCC Supl. (4) 632 JT 1995 (8) 446 1995 SCALE (6)466
O R D
not find any justification warranting interference in this appeal.
only point before the Revenue Tribunal and the High Court was of the title. For
valid reasons the contention was rejected.
there was a suit for possession by the rival reversioners. The
appellants-landlords were the defendants in the suit. The suit ended against
the landlords-appellants and thereby the title remained with the other side of
the reversioners. Since the respondents remained in possession for more than 12
years they have prescribed title by adverse possession. That apart, the
appellants' having entered into a tenancy agreement with the respondents they
are estopped under Section 116 of the Evidence Act to deny the title of the
landlords. Having these insurmountable difficulties in the way, Shri G.N. Ganpule,
learned senior counsel for the appellants, contended that when a notice was
issued to the appellants to pay Nazrana after the abolition of wattan, the
appellants had paid the same and thereby became entitled to remain in
possession and Section 31 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,
1948 has no application. This contention was rejected by the appellate
authorities recording the finding that the respondents paid the Nazrana but
this finding was not canvassed either before the Revenue Tribunal or the High
Court. No clinching evidence has been produced before us to show that the
appellants had paid Nazrana. The contention, therefore, has no substance.
civil appeal is accordingly dismissed without costs.