AMRIT BHIKAJI KALE & ORS. versus KASHINATH JANARDHAN TRADE & ANR.

Citation: [1983] 3 S.C.R. 237 · Decided: 11-05-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

237 
AMRit BHIKAJI KALE & ORS. 
. v. 
KASHINATH JANARDHAN TRADE & ANR. 
May 11, 1983 
(D.A. DESAI AND RANGANATH MISRA, JJ.] 
Bombay-Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, Section 32, scoPe.of-
Legal effects of (i) a will executed by the land-lord in his life time after 
the tenant became the "deemed purchaser" and hence the land-owner on J .4.1957 
and (ii) the proceedings taken on the basis of the will including mutiJtiOn of 
the name of the legatee, postponement of sales under Sections 32F and 32G, 
entertainment of the- suit by the Tenancy Aval Karkoonfiled under Sections 14 
and 29 of the Act, the dispossession of the deemed purchaser and the 
further sale by the recorded owner. 
Estoppel by Conduci-Whether a statement made by a teizant, who has 
becon1ti a deen1ed purchaser under the Act, under the mistake or ignorance of such 
a fact, before the Tenancy ·Tribunal, agreeing for the delivery of possession 'amqunt 
to estoppel. 
Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, as 
amended from time to time provided that on the lstday of April, 1957 styled as 
the "tiller's day" .every .tenant shall subject ·to other provisions of the next 
succeeding sections be deemed to have purchased from his landlord free from 
all encum)!rances Subsisting thereon, on the said date the land held by him as 
a tenant if other conditions of the section are satisfied. By operation of this 
law, one Janardhan, the father of the respondent, became the "deemed pur-
chaser" effective from April 1, 1957, of the land bearing survey No. 1052 and 
measuring 16 acres .situated within the revenue limits of village Sonai Taliika 
Nawasa, District Ahmednagar which belonged to Tarachand Chopra. 
Subsequent to this admitted fact, several incidents took place which have 
led to the present app·eal raising the question of the legal eff~ct of the :several 
steps taken by different persons; ignorant of the factum of Janardhan having 
tecome the deemed purchaser". They are :-(a) Landlord Tarachand died on 
August 12, 1959, after two and a quarter years after Janardhan became the 
statutory purchaser; (ii) Tarachand executed a will, before 
his death, 
bequeathing the suit land to Ash~klal Gugale, a minor; (iii) the revenue 
authorities, who must be av.are of the provisions of the Act, wrongly mutated 
the name of Ashoklal in the revenue records as the landlord in terms of 
the will ; (iv) in spite of the mandatory duty imposed upon the Agricultural 
Lands Tribunal, under Section 32G, to isSue notice to all tenants who 
under section 32 are deen1ed to have purchased the lands, all ·landlords 
of such lands and 
all other persons _ interested 
to appear before:; 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
8. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
238 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1983) 3 S.C.R. 
.. 
it for the determination of the price·of the land whiCh is the subject matfer of 
compulsory purchase, strangely accepted the plea for the postponement of tbe. 
inquiry under section 32F of the Act and later again commenced the proceed-
ings in the year 1967 and concluded the prOceedingS by its order dated July I~, 
1967 repeating the jurisdictional errors; (v) in the interregnum., Ashoklal, 
through his next friend commenced proceedings in case No. 36 of 1967 1in the 
Court of Tenancy Aval Karkoon for the recovery of the possession; (li) the 
Tenancy Aval Karkoon, not only entertained the petition, but also g~t record-
ed two statements, on 5.10.1967, from )anardhan, "the deemed purchaser" to 
the effect that be had no objection to handing over the possession of the land 
to the landlord as he was old and could not cultivate the land personally. and 
another froni. the present respondent to the same effect even thougfi in the life 
time· of his father Janardhan, he had no title to the land involved in the dis-
pute, ~nd, thereafter made the order dated October 6, 1967 edcting Janardh"an 
from the land; (vii) this wholJy null and void order ·enabled the minor landlord 
to sell the land by a registered deed on Noven1ber 13, 1967 tO one Haribhav 
and another, the former later transferred his interest in favour of soc1e of the 
petitioners before the High Court; (viii) on Octo.ber 6, ·1971, Janardhan moved 
the Tribunal under section 32F of the Act to the effect that as the landlord 
Ashoklal had attained majority he was entitled to purchase.the land; (ix) the 
Tribunal started the proceedings under section 32G and after bringing the 
present respondent on record due to the den1

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.