LAXMI BAI versus DAYANU NARAYAH MOHITE(DEAD) THROUGH LRS on 9 October 1991

|

|

A

LAXMI BAI

v.

-DAYANU NARAYAH MOHITE (DEAD) THROUGH LS.|

—

|‘OCTOBER 9, 1991

Bo.

[M.H. KANIA AND RM. SAHAI, JJ]

:

,

- Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948:

.

Sections 32, 32F (1) (a) andproviso—Tenant— Deemed purchaser of| tillers’ da da‘ostponement of tillers’ day—When arises.

C

- land from tillers’ da da

|

|

The appellant, was a member of a joint family with her son. Sheterminated the tenancy of the predecessor-in-title of the respondents, by anotice dated June 24, 1960, giving rise to litigation culminating in theappeal before this Court by the appellant, on the question whether thetenant became deemed purchaser of the land in question, in terms of[TDSection 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948,_ which had declared April 1, 1957 as the tillers’ day and that the tenants ofthe lands who fell within any of the categories described in sub-section (1)'were deemed to have purchased the land heldby them as tenants fromtheir landlords, free from all encumbrances subsisting thereon on that_day. [t was contended that in view of the provisions of clause (a) of sub-E. section (1) of Section 32F of the Act, the tillers’ day was postponed inrespect of the land in question as the appellantwas a widow, and hence itmust be declared that she had terminated the tenancy ofthe tenant beforehe became a deemed purchaser oftheland.=se >

~-

a

'

.

|

_.

_Dismissing the appeal, this Court,

OO

“

F

-_._HELD: 1.1. The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 32F of theBombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, provides inter alia_ that the tillers’ day would not get postponed where the widow-land ownerisa member of a joint family, one of the members whereofwas outside theprotected categories mentioned under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Sec-tion 32F of the Act. [457F]—oO Fo G

oe

.«1.2 In the instant case, admittedly, the son of the appellant who wasjoint with her did not fall within any of the categories referredto in clause(a) of sub-section (1) of Section 32F of the Act. Hence the predecessor-in-title of the respondents became the owner of the said land on the tillers?-H’ day as a deemed. purchaser and the appellant lost her rights in the said .

|

_.

|

.

_

|

on

ee

|

-

“

lAXMI BAI v. D. N. MOHITE [KANIA, J.)

land. Notice given thereafter is of no avail. (457 G] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1150of1978 .. From the Judgment and Order dated 22.9.1976 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Appln. No. 1544 of 1971. B. Datta, J.P. Pathak and P.H.Parekh for the Appellant. A.M. Khanwilkar for the Respondents.

·The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KANIA, J .. The facts found in this appeal show that the appellant, Laxmi Bai, was at the relevant time a member of a joint family with her son, the partition pleaded by the appellant not having been accepted as genuine C by the authorities conc~rned. She terminated.the tenancy of the predeces-sor in title of the respondents by a notice dated June 24, 1960. Under the provisions of Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to.as "the said Act"), April 1, 1957, was deelared as the tillers' day and Section 32 of the said Act provided inter atia . that the tenants of the land who fell within any of categories described in D sub-section (1) of the. said section were deemed to have purchased the land held by them as tenants from their landlords, free of all encumbrances subsisting thereon on the said day. The case of the appellant is that, In the present case, the tiUers' day was postponed in view· of the provisions of cla'Use (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 32 F of the said Act, as she was· a widow and hence, it must be held that she had terminated the tenancy of E tenant, Dayanu, the predecessor in title of the respondents before he be-came a deemed purchaser of the land. It is not possible to accept this contention in view of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 32 F of the said Act which provides, inter alia that the tillers' day would not get postponed where the widow-land owner is a member of a joint family, one of the members whereof was outside the protected categories mentioned F under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 32 F of the said Act. In the present case, there is no dispute that the ion of the appellant who was joint with her did not fall within any of the categories referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 32 F of the said Act. In these circumstances, Dayanu became the owner of the said land on the tillers' day as a deemed • predecessor and the appellant lost her rights in the sai.d land. Notice given G thereafter is of no avail.

The appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.