Supreme Court of India
BHARMAPPA NEMANNA KAWALE AND ANR. versus DHODI BHIMA PATIL AND ORS. on 25 March 1996
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.
A
BHARMAPPA NEMANNA KAWALE AND ANR. v.
DHODI BHIMA PATIL AND ORS.
MARCH 25, 1996
B (K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
Land Laws:
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1984 :
c
S.185-A-Suit for eviction decreed by civil court holding that defendant was not a tenant-Execution of decre,,-Plea of want of jural relationship raised in execution negative~High Cowt directing executing court to decide • the issue of tenancy-Held, the issue of tenancy having become final held, the issue of tenancy having become final under the decree, executing cowt was D right in refusing to ente1tain the objection for executing the decree-High Court not justified in directing executing court to consider the objection.
E
C!Vl1' APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5376 of 1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.11.91 of the Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 319 of 1982.
F
Dr. R.B. Masodkar and Ms. Vrinda Dhar for the Appellants.
A.S. Bhasme for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Delay condoned.
Substitution ordered.
G
Leave granted. We have heard the learned counsel on both sides.
The admitted position is that the civil Court decreed the suit for eviction against the appellant holding that he was not a tenant which order had become final. The same plea of want of jural relationship is sought to H be raised in execution. When the objection raised was negatived, the High
885
B.N. KAWALEv. D,B. PATIL
' f Court in Writ Petition No. 3319 3319 of 1992 by order dated November 22, 1992 by order dated November 22, 1991 directed the 'executing Court to go into the question. Accordingly,, this appeal by special leave came to be filed. ~
Court in Writ Petition No. 3319 3319 of 1992 by order dated November 22, 1992 by order dated November 22, ' by order dated November 22, f order dated November 22, 22, 1991 A
Shri Bhasme, learned counsel for the ~espondenfs, contended that irr view of the specific language employed in Section 85-A of the Bombay ~ Tenancy and Agricultural Lands.Act, 1948 the only c1ompete~t authority B that has to go into the question is the revenue authority under the Ai:t and civil Court has no jurisdiction to go into the question whether the appellant is a tenant or not. There fore, the High Court was right in directing the executing court to go into the questfon. It is rather ·unfortunate that the respondent has allowed the decree ho_lding that he is not a tenant to C become fmal. Having allowed it to bec~me final, it 'is not open to him to contend that he is still a tenant under .the Act and therefore the decree is nullity. Under those circumstances, the executing Court was right in refus-ing to entertain the objection for executing the decree. The High Court was not justified, the circumstances, in directing the executive Court to consider the objection. • · , . · D
D ·
·'"· t_ '
The appeal.is acco;dingly allowed. No costs ..
:c:,
·R.P.
•'
App~al allowed.
' •·
. ' .
. ' '·.fl .. ,,
. l
. '
. ~ .. '
'• .
·I ·,I
-·•· t
"