Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants assailing the impugned order contended that, though there is no mutation entry in the name of the original applicant either prior to 1.3.1974 or subsequent to 1.3.1974, the other material produced on record clearly shows he was in occupation of the land, cultivating the same as a tenant. In fact by filing suit for ejectment against his brother-in-law in execution of the said decree, he had been thrown out. He filed an application for redelivery which application has been allowed and the said order has become final. In the said proceedings it has been held that he is a tenant in respect of the schedule property. Though the house is situated in Sy. No. 277, the agricultural land is situated in Sy. No. 254 which is a garden land, the trees are all grown by him and now they are yielding fruits and therefore he submits a case of tenancy was made out which has not been properly appreciated both by the Tribunal and the learned single Judge. Therefore, he submits the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.