Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. Facts of the plaintiff, may be summarised as under :-

                                               case,         stated        by        the
                              
    .                  Plaintiff       himself and his brother Mohd.

    Ismail         were        co-owners       of      the      land         S.No.7,
      


    admeasuring          22     acres and 10 gunthas, situated                       at
   



    village            Ausa,     District           Latur.      The      partition

. After this transaction, plaintiff left for Sangali - for medical treatment. Defendant took initiated dis-advantage of the plaintiff's absence false proceedings before the Tribunal at and Ausa, seeking ownership certificate under section 38-A of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 ("Act of 1950"). In this proceeding the plaintiff was not party and was not served with the notice. Despite this fact, the tribunal issued certificate under section 38-A of the Act of 1950 in favour of defendant No.1.

    .               Learned
                             ig   counsel for the appellants                has
                           
    invited       my     attention      to Exhibit 58       i.e.        joint

    application          filed     by the plaintiff and          defendant

No.1 before the Tribunal dated 18.6.1963. In this joint application, statement is made " That, Shri Kasim s/o Fareed resident of Ausa (defendant No.1) ordinary tenant is entitled under section 38-A of the Act of 1950 to purchase the land. It is further averred that reasonable price payable by Kasim s/o Fareed (defendant No.1) (ordinary tenant) to the land owner Naseer Mohammad (plaintiff) was settled at Rs.8,000/- by mutual agreement and Shri Kasim (defendant No.1) ordinary tenant has paid the whole amount to the land owner Naser (plaintiff).

                 28.3.1961,
                                ig   plaintiff        left for

In paragraph No.8, it has been pleaded Sangli for that absence of plaintiff from village Ausa was utilised by defendant No.1 for procuring fabricated certificate under section 38-A of the Act of 1950.

A specific pleading is made in paragraph No.8 that plaintiff was not a party to the said proceeding.