CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION v. Smt. Gaurava Mallappa Dhang, (Deceased) through legal heir:­

Judgment

1. Smt. Gaurava Mallappa Dhang, (Deceased) through legal heir:­ Shri Appasaheb Mallappa Dhange, Age 35 yrs., Agriculturist, R/at Benadi, Tal­ Chikodi, Dist­ Belgaum. 2/10                                                2410.91­wp­­

2. Maruti Basappa Gudguddi, 65 years, R/o. Hitani, Tal­ Gadhinglaj, Dist­ Kolhapur. ...  Respondents. WITH SECOND APPEAL NO.  166  OF 1999 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.  1169  OF 2003

Shri Taigonda Ramgonda Patil, AGED 55 YEARS, Occupation­ agriculturist, R/o. at and post­ Hitni, Taluka­ Gadhinglaj, District­ Kolhapur. ...  Appellant. V/s.

2. Smt.Gangavva w/o Ballappa Shivgunshi, deceased through her L/R Gaurava w/o Mallappa Dhange since deceased through LR Appasaheb Mallappa Dhang, Occu­ agriculturist,  R/at Bendi, Tal­ Chikodi, Dist­ Belgaum. Maruti Basappa Gudguddi, 60 years, R/o. Hitani, Tal­ Gadhinglaj, Dist­ Kolhapur. ...  Respondents. WITH SECOND APPEAL NO.  167  OF 1999 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.  3189  OF 1999 Shri Taigonda Ramgonda Patil, since deceased through his legal heirs :­ (a) Smt.Prabhavati Taigonda Patil, aged 54 yrs, Occupation­ housewife, Wife of the petitioner, R/o at & Post­ Hitni,Taluka­ Gadhinglaj, Distrtict­ Kolhapur. 3/10                                                2410.91­wp­­ (b) Shri Basgonda Taigonda Patil, aged 35 years, Occupation­ service, Son of the petitioner, R/o. for service presently at B.T.Patil Dental Research, Institute of Nuclear Medicine and Allied Sciences, Lucknow Road, Timarpur, Delhi­ 54. (c) Shri Kalgonda Taigonda Patil, aged 26 yrs. Occupation­ agriculturist, son of the petitioner, R/o at & Post­ Hitni, Taluka­ Gadhinglaj, District­ Kolhapur. (d) Smt.Sushila Mahadeo Patil, aged 31 yrs. Occupation­ housewife, daughter of the petitioner, R/o at & Post­ Takawade, Taluka­ Shirol, District­ Kolhapur. (e) Smt. Pramila Mallappa Alaknur, aged 29 yrs., Occupation­ housewife, daughter of petitioner, R/o at & Post­ Bellad Bagewadi, Tal­ Hukkeri, District­ Belgaum, Karnataka State. ...  Appellants.

3. V/s. Smt.Gangavva w/o Ballappa Shivgunshi, deceased through her L/R Gaurava w/o Mallappa Dhang, since deceased through LR Appasaheb Mallappa Dhang, Occu­ agriculturist,  R/at Benadi, Tal­ Chikodi, Dist­ Belgaum, Karnataka State. Kolhapur District Co­operative Land Development Bank Limited, Gadhinglaj Branch, District­ Kolhapur. Maruti Basappa Gudguddi, 60 years, R/o. Hitani, Tal­ Gadhinglaj, Dist­ Kolhapur. ...  Respondents. 4/10                                                2410.91­wp­­ G.R.Rege i/b. Anil L. Desai for the petitioner/appellants. M.R.Suryawanshi for respondent No.2 (in W.P.No.2410/1991 and S.A.No.166/1999) and for respondent No.3 (in S.A.No.167/1999). CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED  : 13th December 2012. ORAL JUDGMNT : All these proceeding are to be decided together.

2. Civil Application No.1169/2003 has been filed to set aside the abatement, to condone delay and to permit the name of legal heirs to be brought on record in S.A. 166 of 1999.   The appellant­ Paigonda expired on 29th October 2002 and need to bring his legal heirs on record surfaced on 28th April 2003.   Thereafter present application has been filed.   The respective counsel have been heard finally in all matters.   In this situation and   in   absence   of   serious   objection,   Civil   Application   No.1169/2003   is granted and legal heirs of appellant Paigonda are permitted to come on record   in   second   appeal.   Necessary   amendment   to   be   carried   out immediately.

3. The writ petition challenges answer to question referred by civil Court under section 85­A of the Bombay Tenancy Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 holding the defendant therein not to be a tenant.   That order was upheld by Sub­Divisional Officer in appeal and thereafter by MRT in revision.     Because of this adjudication, civil suit instituted by landlady 5/10                                                2410.91­wp­­ Smt.Gangava   vide   Civil   Suit   No.100/1973   for   redemption   of   mortgage came   to   be   decreed   and   that   decree   of   possession   was   maintained   in regular civil appeal.     The Second Appeal No.166/1999 challenges that adjudication.       Landlady's   civil   suit   claiming   mesne   profits   was   then decreed and that decree was also maintained by the Additional District Judge in regular civil appeal.   This determination has been questioned in Second Appeal No.167/1999.

4. The   learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   states   that   as   the determination of issue of tenancy in reference proceedings goes to the root of the matter, the second appeals have been placed for consideration along with this writ petition and though no formal question of law has been framed, the judgment and decree delivered against the petitioner will be required to be set aside if the  petition is allowed.     Therefore, in both second appeals only question involved is about impact of adjudication by this Court in Writ Petition No.2410/1994.

5. The facts show that suit lands belonged to one Smt. Gangavva and present petitioner claimed to be the tenant upon it since prior to 1957 and also on tillers day i.e. 1st April 1957.   He claims that Gangavva had mortgaged those lands to him on 11th March 1965 for a period of five year. In 1973 she filed Regular Civil Suit No.100/1973 for redemption of that mortgage and it came to be decreed. Petitioner was directed to deliver possession  to Smt. Gangavva.   His first appeal preferred under Section 06 CPC was dismissed.   However, in Second Appeal No.749/1980, this Court on 3rd  February 1981   remanded  the matter back to the trial Court by framing issue on status of petitioner as tenant with direction to refer it to the competent authority for its adjudication as required by section 85­A 6/10                                                2410.91­wp­­ read with section 70(b)  of the above­mentioned Tenancy Act.   The trial Court, accordingly, referred that issue on 14th April 1981.

6. The Tahasildar while adjudicating that issue on 13th  January 1983 held that the petitioner was not tenant.     He had also permitted sister of Gangavva by name Gaurrava to come on record as legal heir/ representative   as   Gangavva   had   expired   on   9th  June   1981.       The adjudication by Tahasildar was maintained in appeal under section 74 of Tenancy Act by S.D.O. on 24th November 1987.   These concurrent orders were not interfered by MRT and maintained on 14th  December 1990 in revision filed by petitioner under section 76.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that none of the authorities have properly appreciated the opposition of the petitioner to effort made by Gaurrava to come on record in place of Gangavva.     He submits that before her death on 9th June 1981, Gangavva had registered and   executed   a   will   dated   31st  December   1980   and   bequeathed   entire property   including   suit­lands   to   one   Annapurna   Khandagale.       Thus, Gaurrava could not have represented the estate of the deceased.

8. It   is   further   pointed   out   that   as   the   proposed   legal representative   was   not   brought   on   record   within   time   as   required,   the proceedings in RCS No.100/1973 instituted by Gangavva itself abated and suit stood dismissed after expiry of period of 150 days of her death i.e. on 9th November 1981.   Learned counsel submits that, therefore, the further adjudication   and   decree   in   that   suit   which   been   questioned   in   Second Appeal   No.166/1999   must   fall     to   ground   even   on   that   account. Attention is invited to memo of appeal filed under section 96 CPC in that 7/10                                                2410.91­wp­­ matter   before   the   District   Court   to   show   that   vide   ground   No.7,   this question   has   been   specifically   raised   but   has   not   been   answered   in judgment delivered in that appeal.

9. The   learned   counsel   further   submit   that   as   suit   itself   had abated   the   reference   therein   did   not   survive.       The   answer   recorded therein     is,   therefore,   not   binding   and   consequential.       The   possession present petitioner cannot be treated as unauthorized.  The subsequent suit filed   for   recovery   of   mesne   profits   is,   therefore,   misconceived   and concurrent   judgment   and   decrees   therein   questioned   in   Second   Appeal No.167/1999, therefore, must also fall to ground.

10. Advocate Suryawanshi has submitted that alleged beneficiary and   so   called   lady   Annapurna   has   never   surfaced   after   the   death   of Gangavva  after  9th June 1981 till date.   Her real sister Gauravva is the only   heir  and   legal   representative.       She   has  been,  therefore,   correctly brought on record.   He submits that the Tahasildar has passed an order in the   face   of   objection   raised   by   the   present   petitioner   and   permitted Gauravva to come on record and that order was never questioned.  He has invited attention to developments of various dates to show that Gauravva has been effectively representing the estate of deceased.

11. Learned counsel submits that petitioner which continuous in wrongful possession has only with a view to delay his eviction raised such a frivolous plea.

12. Without prejudice to this contention and by way of abundant precaution,   he   has   invited   attention   to   the   judgment   of   Hon'ble   Apex 8/10                                                2410.91­wp­­ Court in Jaladi Suguna   v.  Satya Sai Central Trust,  (2008) 8 SCC 521, particularly paragraph­15 thereof, to submit that by coming on record it cannot be said that Gauravva has in any way prejudiced  rights of  alleged beneficiary   Annapurna.     He   contends   that   dispute,   if   any,   between Annapurna and Gauravva  can be resolved in separate proceeding by said legal representatives, if and as/when it arises but petitioner cannot seek to take   its   benefits.     For   the   same   purpose,   attention   is   also   invited   to judgment   of   the   Hon'ble   Apex   Court   in  Mrs.Annupam   Pruthi     v. Smt.Rajen Bai, AIR 1988 SC 2041, particularly paragraphs­ 3 and 4.

13. Thus,   the   adjudication   of   writ   petition   as   also   the   above­ mentioned second appeals depend   only on the question whether in the wake of registered will dated 13th  January 1980 left behind by deceased Gangavva, the prosecution of matters i.e. civil suit and tenancy reference by her sister Gauravva has, in any way, affected the determination of the issues   involved   and   whether   only   on   that   account   the   petitioner   can succeed before this Court.

14. Perusal of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Mrs.Annupam Pruthi  v.  Smt.Rajen Bai (supra), particularly paragraph­5, reveals that once   a   particular   person   was   permitted   to   come   on   record   as   legal representative,   merely   on   account   of   disclosure   of   subsequent   will   left behind by deceased that order could not have been recalled.   The Hon'ble Apex Court has found that learned single Judge of the High Court was justified in refusing to recall the earlier order and Division Bench order setting   it   aside   with   direction   to   hold   enquiry   in   accordance   with provisions of order 22 rule 5 CPC has been set aside.   The Hon'ble Apex Court has also clarified that it is still open to person claiming under will to 9/10                                                2410.91­wp­­ move appropriate proceedings before competent Court and the fact that another person has come on record of civil suit to represent the estate of deceased cannot come in his way.     The perusal of judgment in  Jaladi Suguna   v.  Satya Sai Central Trust (supra) also reveals same view and explains the limited purpose  and scope of enquiry under order 22 rule 5 C.P.C.   It is, therefore, clear that if there is any will left behind by the deceased Gangavva in favour of any Annapurna, it is always open to said Annapurna to come forward and stake her claim.  In that litigation  only the various questions which may arise between the parties thereto can be gone into. Present petitioner can not attempted to safeguard interest of Annapurna in litigation of present nature.

15. The effort of present petition is to show that the suit could not have been prosecuted by Gauravva.     The petitioner is not disputing relationship between Gaurava and Gangavva.   Being real sister,Gauravva has effectively defended the estate of deceased right up to this Court.  Suit 100 of 1973 was decreed on 20th February 1979 and petitioner's Regular Civil   Appeal   113/1979   was   rejected   on   4th  June   1980.   Second   Appeal 749/1980   was   disposed   of   on   3rd  February   1981   and   accordingly,   civil court referred the issue to tenancy Tahasildar on 14th April 1981. Gngavva expired after all this on 9th June 1981 and in tenancy reference permitted Gauravva to come on record in her place on 31st  March 1987. This was never   assailed   by   petitioner. The   only   purpose   for   which   legal representative is permitted to come on record has, been accomplished in the present matter.    The petitioner cannot contend that he is not bound to obey the decree of the civil Court because suit is not prosecuted by a proper legal heir/ representative. He could not point out any prejudice as Gauravva prosecuted all matters. 10/10                                                2410.91­wp­­

16. In view of this discussion, I find no case made out warranting interference in writ jurisdiction of this court.   Writ Petition 2410 of 1991 is, thus, dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs.

17. In view of dismissal of petition, both second appeals  are also to be dismissed.  Same are accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. Sanjay Nanoskar, P.S. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)