BALKRISHNA SOMNATH versus SADA DEVRAM KOLI & ANOTHER

Citation: [1977] 2 S.C.R. 678 · Decided: 20-01-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
678 
BALKRISHNA SOMNATH 
v. 
SADA DEVRAM KOLI & ANOTHER 
January 20, 1977 
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND A. C. GUPTA, JJ.] 
Bombay Tenancy & Agricultwal Lands Act, 1948 (Bombay Act LXVII of 
1948) as amended by Bombay Act XIII of 1956, section 32-Scope of-Inter-
pretation of the words "disabled person's share in the joint family 
has beerr 
separated by metes and bounds" occurring in proviso to s. 32 F(l) (a). 
~ 
Under s. 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 the 
tiller of the land had the. right to purchase the land tenanted to him. Where 
the landlord is a minor or a widow or a person subject to any mental or physi-
c'.11 disability, the right to purchase such land is postponed till their disability 
d1sappea~s and one year lapses thereafter. But this embargo on the exercise 
of the nght of purchase ]:>y the tenant does not operate as 
per proviso to 
s. 32F(l)(a), if the property belongs to a joint family and there is a partition 
therein and the land is alloJted to the person under disability. 
In both the appeals, the family owned lands and other assets and there was 
a partition confined to agricultural land only. In one case the share fell to a 
widow while in the other it fell to a minor, admittedly a disabled person within 
the meaning of s 32F(1). Before the Tribunal and lhe High Court, the land-
lord claimed, ther_efore, protection under the proviso to clause (a) of section 
32F(l) of the Act while the respondent contended that even if the agricultural 
land had been divided and other assets admittedly remained joint, the appellant 
was ineligible to .claim the benefit of the proviso. The High Court decided 
against the landlord and held : "The proviso is not satisfied unless the share of 
a disabled person is separated by metes and bounds in all the joint family pro-
perty and unless the agricultural land allotted to him corresponds to his share 
in the entire property and is not in excess thereof'. 
Dismissing the app~al to this Court, 
HELD : (1) The broad idea is to vest full ownership in the tenantry. A 
compassionate exception is made in favour of a handicapped landlords 
who 
cannot prove their need to recover their land on approved grounds. The 
Legislature conditioned the proviso by insisting that the sej)aration should be 
from the whole joint family assets and not a tell-tale transaction where agricul-
tural lands alone are divided and secondly even where there is a total partition 
only a fair proportion of the lands is allotted to the disabled person. [682 C-D-FJ 
(2) What section 32F(1) insists upon is that (a) share of such person in the 
joint family has been separated by metes and bounds; (b) the Mamlatdar is 
satisfied that the share of the disabled person in the land is separated in the 
same proportion as the share of that person in the entire joint family property 
and not in a larger proportian. [681 GJ 
(3) The imperative condition for the operation of the proviso is that there 
should be a total separation and so far as a disabled member is concerned, it 
must cover all the joint family properties. The usage of the expressions "the · 
share of such person in the joint_family", "the share of such person in the 
land" "the share of that person in the entire joint family 
property" in 
the· 
sectio~ the clear statement in the proviso that the disabled person's share in 
the joint family must have been separated by metes a.nd ~ound~ and the sta!u-
tory exercise expected of the Mamlatdar by the proviso mvolvmg an enqmry 
into the share of the disabled person in the land and its value, the share of 
that person in the entire joint family properties, the proportion that the allot-
I ,, 
( 
' I, 
) 
BALKRISHNA v. SADA DEVRAM (Krishna Iyer, J.) 
679 
i 
ment of the land bears to his share in the entire joint family property with a 
A 
view to see that there is no unfair manouvre to defeat the scheme of the Act-
.lead to the nec~ssary postulate that it is not confined to the share of the land 
<0nly but really means his share in the entire joint family property. 
[683 E-H, 684 Al 
( 4) In the instant case there is no division of all the joint family property. 
<Only the landed properties have been separa~. [684-B] 
-Observation : 
The reform of the inherited law-niaking methodology may save court time 
;and reduce litigation. Our legislative process, not an unmixed blessing, works 
under such instant stress and ad hoc hephazardness that the whole piece o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.