Bombay High Court
WRIT PETITION 1159 on 1 August 1989
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1159 OF 1992
Shri Nivrutti Rama ShirkeAge Adult, Occ. LabourR/o. Belwandi, Tq. ShrigondaDistrict Ahmednagar
...Petitioner
Versus
Shri Raghunath Bajirao Shirke,Age adult, Occ. Agriculture,R/o. Belwandi, Tq. Shrigonda,District Ahmednagar
...Respondents
.....
Mr. K.D. Bade Patil, advocate for the petitioner Mr. Vikramsinh P. Patil h/f Mr. V.D. Hon, advocate for respondent
.....
CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.DATED: 29TH JULY, 2011
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT:-
1 Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
2The certificate issued to the present respondent under Section 32-M of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act was assailed by the present petitioner before the Sub Divisional Officer, Parner, who dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, the said order was assailed before wp1159.92
the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune by filing Revision. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal also dismissed the revision. Aggrieved, thereby the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
Shri K.D. Bade Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Courts below have failed to take into consideration the factum that the father of petitioner was of unsound mind. The evidence in this regard and more particularly the certificate dated 1.8.1989 issued by Dr. Khisti is not at all considered by the courts below. The learned counsel contends that the Courts were expected to appreciate the said certificate in its correct perspectives. A suo motu proceedings were initiated by the authority under Section 32-G and had determined the purchase price. The proceedings were taken up against the same. The learned counsel further contends that the courts were duty bound to consider the certificate showing that the father of the petitioner was of unsound mind at the relevant time.
4Shri Patil, learned counsel supports the judgment and contends that the courts below have concurrently come to the conclusion on appreciation of evidence that the father of the petitioner was not of unsound mind. The attending circumstances have also been taken into consideration.
5With the assistance of the learned counsel I have gone through the judgments. Both the courts have considered that the certificate produced by the petitioner so also the attending circumstances. It has been observed by the courts that the certificate dated 1.8.1989 produced by the applicant before the Revisional Court is of different kind than certificate given by the Doctor on 1.4.1957. The earlier certificate mentions that he was a patient of mental disorder. The subsequent certificate is tried to be negatived by public notice given in Daily Nava Maratha dated 16.11.1967 and by the affidavit of Dr. Khisti before the senior clerk in the court of learned C.J.S.D. Ahmednagar, it was mentioned in the certificate dated 1.4.1957 that Rama Shirke was of suspecting mental disorder and not a patient of mental disorder. The statement given by deceased Rama Shirke was also considered by the court. After perusing the statement, the learned Member was satisfied that the said statement does not indicate any insanity or mental disorder. In the statement, it was stated by deceased Rama Shirke that he had leased out the land at ` 50 before to 6 to 7 years of statement recorded in 1961 and details of the said statement have been taken into consideration.
6All the above facts shows that the authorities have taken into consideration the attending circumstances.
7In view of the above, the judgment delivered by the authorities cannot be faulted with. The writ petition as such dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs.
*****