JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Judgment dated August 24, 1987 is sought to be reviewed by the applicants who are petitioners in the revision application No. 56/87. By the impugned judgment while confirming that the respondent/original plaintiff has made out a prima facie case that he is in possession of the property "Deusum" I remanded the matter to the District Court to render fresh findings and decide whether the petitioners were in possession of the house and that they were dispossessed as alleged in the light of the observations made, for I found that the case of the petitioners viz. the house had to be separately dealt with from that of the property (sic). In paragraph 10 I observed that the petitioners' names having not been shown as tenants and mention to have 'khoti' right that too in the Other Rights column in the survey record prima facie 'khoti' cannot be equated to tenancy rights going by the word 'khoti' as mentioned in the dictionary. The fact remains that the tenants column is blank in Forms I and XIV vide the property surveyed under No. 100/1.
(2.)Shri Rebello, learned counsel for the applicants now says that my observation that 'khoti' cannot be equated with tenancy rights is erroneous as it goes against a judgment delivered by this very Court earlier in Civil Revn. Appln. No. 163 of 1984 decided on 11th April, 1985 and further having regard to a decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in AIR 1934 Bom 434. He now urges that 'khoti' must be equated with lease and if the applicants are held to be the lessees in respect of the property surveyed under No. 100/1 the whole perspective would change in the matter of appreciation of the applicants' case and therefore the impugned judgment will have to be reviewed.
(3.)It is true that in Civil Revision Application No. 163/84 observations were made that 'khoti' is to be equated with lease but however it must be seen that the two survey numbers involved in that case were survey Nos. 399/6 and 397/2. The survey authorities themselves had recorded that there was 'rakhan' in respect of property bearing survey No. 399/6 and 'khoti' in respect of property bearing survey No. 397/2. Since the authorities themselves had made a distinction between 'rakhan' and 'khoti' I had perforce to say that 'rakhan' would amount to watch and ward duties and 'khoti' would amount to something alike a lease. But this was again a decision rendered at interlocutory stage and the matter as to the character of the transaction between the parties had to be decided finally in the suit on merits.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.