LexDADU RAU YELAVADE (DEAD) BY HIS HEIRS AND LRS versus HIMMAT RASUL PATEL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
DADU RAU YELAVADE(DEAD) BY HIS HEIRS AND LRS. A v. HIMMAT RASUL PATEL MARCH 10, 1992 [S.RANGANATHAN, V. RAMASWAMI AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL. JJ.] B Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948-Sections 32, 32G, 32M, 43, 64(8~Transfer of land by landlord after tiller's day-Void-Sale by landlord-Ratification-Effect-Vesting of title on tenants on C 21.12.1969-Sale of share by a co-tenant on 11.5.1966-Validity of. The landlord, Prabhu's lands measuring 3 acres 25 gunthas were under the cultivation of Rau, the tenant-appellant. The landlord u/s. 31 read with section 29 of the Bombay Tenancy and D Agricultural Lands Act, 1943 instituted a proceeding against the tenant. During the pendency of the proceeding Rau died and his tenancy rights were inherited by his four sons, the present appellants. The landlord on 27.4.1961 decided to sell the suit land to the fourth E son of the demised tenant, who effected a partition of the property. On 24.5.1961, the proceeding u/ss.29, 31 of the Act was dismissed. Mahadu, one of the sons of Rau, sold his share in the suit land in favour of the respondent on 11.5.1966 by a registered deed. F In 1969, the Tahsildar initiated proceedings u/s. 32G of the Act, and on 21.12.1969 by his order he declared the fourth son of Rau as the purchaser and also directed that a certificate u/s. 32 M read with section 43 of the Act should be issued to the tenants. He also held that the sale G effected by Mahadu in favour of the respondent was contrary to law and directed the removal of the respondent's name from the revenue records. In the meanwhile one of the sons of Rau instituted a suit against the respondent for an injunction restraining him from obstructing his posses- sion of the property. The respondent contested the suit contending that he, H 101 ' 102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] 2 S.C.R. A being the purchaser of Mahadu's .share, was entitled to remain in posses- sion as a co-owner along with the plaintiff. B c The Civil Court u/s. 85 of the Act referred two issues for determina- tion of the tenancy authorities, which were:- "(1) Was the plaintiff a tenant of the suit-property and did he subsequently become its deemed purchaser ? (2) Was the sale deed by Mahadu to Patel (respondent) invalid under Act?" The Tahsildar answered both questions in affirmative. In appeal, the findings of the Tahsildar, that the plaintiff was the deemed purchaser of the land on 1.4.1959 and that the transfer by Mahadu in favour of the respondent was hit by the provisions of section 43 of the D Act, were confirmed. E Respondent;s revision was allowed by the Revenue Tribunal, holding 1at the sale by Mahadu in favour of respondent was not invalid; that the ons of Rau were deemed purchasers only on 24.5 .• 1961 and became actual purchaser only on 21.12.1969, when the sale in their favour was regularised u/s. 32M of the Act. The High Court dismissed the revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution by the appellants, holding that section 64 did not prohibit the landlord from selling his land to the tenants by private F agreements; that the ownership rights of the tenants were acquired not u/s. 32 of the Act but by virtue of a sale between the landlord and the tenants; that since the sale was not one u/s. 32, provisions of section 43 of the Act were not attracted; and that the tenants became owners not on 24.5.1961 but on 27 .4.1961. G Against the order of the High Court by special leave, the present appeal was preferred by the tenants. The appellants-tenants-plaintiffs contended that the High Court erred in holding that the sale in favour of the appellants-tenants was not H affected by section 64 of the Act. DADU RAU v. H.R. PATEL 103 Disposing of the appeal on the question, whether by the sale deed A dated 11.5.66, any valid title to the suit land was conferred upon the respondent, this Court HELD : 1.01. The High Court has over-looked the clear provisions of section 64(8), which declare that any transfer by a landlord after tiller's day would be void. The tenants could not, therefore, have acquired any B rights or title under the sale deed executed by the landlord. [107H·108A] 1.02. Though the order un~er section 32-G purports to ratify the earlier transaction of sale by the landlord to the tenants, the transaction acquires its validity not by virtue of the sale deed of 27.4.1961 but only by C virtue of the order under section
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.