Sadu Yesu vs Ganpat Laxman and Another

A suit filed by the plaintiff against the petitioner and two others u/s 19(1) (a), Mamlatdars Courts Act was dismissed by the Mamlatdar on the ground that the plaintiff had not shown that he was in possession of the land. Statutory issues required to be framed u/s 19(1) were found upon by the Mamlatdar against the plaintiff and in favour of the petitioner. The plaintiff''s revisional application was, however, allowed by the District Deputy Collector, who answered the statutory issues in favour of the plaintiff. That is why defendant No. 2 has come to this Court In revision.

It appears that the District Deputy Collector set aside the order passed by the Mamlatdar on two grounds. The District Deputy Collector did not agree with the Mamlatdar''s appreciation of evidence and so he thought that it was open to him to consider the evidence afresh and come to his own conclusions on questions of fact. The validity of this course has been challenged before me by Mr. Abhyankar. Mr. Abhyankar has invited my attention to the judgment of Beaumont C. J. in Babaji Kondaji Mali Vs. Bala Fakira Mahar, in which the learned Chief Justice has decided that this Court would be entitled to interfere with a revisional order passed u/s 23(2), Mamlatdars Courts Act where it appears that the revisional order has set aside the Mamlatdar''s order on the ground that the revisional court did not agree with the Mamlatdar''s findings of fact. In my opinion, the contention raised by Mr. Abhyankar must be upheld. The revisional Judgment in terms observes that the revisional Court wanted to appreciate the evidence for himself and on that appreciation he came to a contrary conclusion on a question of fact.

The second argument which has been urged before me by Mr. Abhyankar is that, in dealing with the present revisional application, the District Deputy Collector need not and should not have considered the tenancy rights. The tenancy rights have got to be determined by the Special Court established under the Tenancy Act and inasmuch as the consideration of tenancy rights has been imported in the decision of the revisional application arising from proceedings under the Mamlatdars Courts Act, the revisional Court has acted illegally. Even this point must be regarded as well-rounded

But the first contention itself is enough to dispose of the present revisional Application. The District Deputy Collector has interfered with Mamlatdar''s conclusions on simple question of fact and he was not authorised to do so u/s 23(2), Mamlatdars Courts Act.

In the result, the revisional application must be allowed, the order under revision must be set aside and that of the Mamlatdar restored. There will be no order as to costs in this Court and in the lower Court. Rule absolute.

Revision allowed.