DHONDIRAM TATOBA KADAM versus RAMCHANDRA BALWANTRAO DUBAL

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 419 · Decided: 27-07-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.K. THOMMEN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

DHONDIRAM TATOBA KADAM 
v. 
RAMCHANDRA BALWANTRAO DUBAL 
(SINCE DECEASED) BY HIS LRS. AND ANR. 
JULY 27, 1993 
[DR. T.K. THOMMEN, V. RAMASWAMI AND R.M. SAHA!, JJ.] 
Tenancy Laws: Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 : 
A 
B 
Section 32( 1-B )-Tenant su"endering the tenancy-Whether could be said to 
have been dispossesse(}-Whether could claim the benefit under this section. 
C 
Respondent No.1 filed a suit against Respondent No.2 and the 
appellant, alleging that a conditional mortgage was executed by him in 
favour of Respondent No.2 in 1952 after getting the land surrendered from 
the appellant. It was claimed that despite the offer of paying the mortgage 
amount, defendant was not willing to hand over possession to the plaintiff. D 
Therefore it was prayed that a declaration be granted that the plaintiff was 
the owner of the said land on payment of the mortgage amount to the 
defendant. 
In the written statement the defendant pleaded that the land was let E 
out to the appellant and so the possession was with the appellant. 
The trial court framed the issues regarding the tenancy and referred 
. them for decision to the Revenue authorities, who decided in favour of the 
plaintiff, The appeal preferred by the defendant and the appellant was 
dismissed by the appellate authority, holding that the appellant was not F 
the tenant from 1952 to 1968, 
The Revenue Tribunal allowed the revision preferred by the appel· 
lant and set aside the order passed by the two authorities. Against this 
order, the plaintiff filed a civil miscellaneous application before the High 
Court. The application was allowed and the order of the Tribunal was set G 
aside. The High Court found that the appellant continued to possess the 
land till he surrendered in 1956, and that he was not in possession from 
1956-57 till 1968·69. Since the appellant did nut move any application 
within two years under section 29 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural 
Lands Act,1948, his remedy to recover possession became barred by limita- H 
419 
420 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A !ion and so the right of the appellant extinguished. The High court dis-
agreed with the Revenue Tribunal on collusion between the appellant and 
defendant. 
The present appeal is against the said decision of the High Court. 
B 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: Per Majority (Sahai, J. for himself and Dr. Thommen, /)" 
1.1 Section 32(1-B) of the Bm~bay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands 
C Act, 1948 should be construed in a manner which must effectuate the 
legislative objective of making every tenant purchaser of the land if he 
satisfies the conditions laid down in Section 32(1-B) of the Act whether he 
was in possession or not. [427-G] 
1.2 Section 32(1-B) entitles a tenant to restoration of possession 
D provided he was in possession on the appointed date, i.e.15th June 1955, 
and was dispossessed before 1st April 1957 and his landlord was in 
possession on 31st July 1969. The Section is, thus, in two parts, one 
creating right and other entitling restoration of possession. Proceedings 
for restoration could take place. either at the instance of the tenant or suo 
E moto by the Tehsildar. But the order could be passed only if the primary 
requirements of tenant being in possession on the appointed date and his 
dispossession before 1st April 1957 were satisfied. The language of the 
latter part of the section, directing the Tehsildar to take possession of the 
land from the landlord and restore it to the tenant who, on restoration by 
operation of law, becomes purchaser from the date of restoration, is clear 
F legislative indication to construe the section liberally in favour of the 
tenant. [426-F-H] 
1.3 The language of the sub-section (1-B) of section 32 is clear that 
it does not grant•any protection to a tenant who was in possession Of\"
031st 
July, 1969. But reading the section in such a narrow manner would be 
G defeating the legislative objective of enacting a beneficient legislation 
endeavouring to make the tillers of soil as purchaser and owner. This is 
clear from amendments made from time to time between 1957 and 1969. 
When Section 32 was renumbered and sub-section(1) was added in 1957, 
1.st April 1957 was declared as tillers' day and it was provided that every 
H tenant who was one of those mentioned in the sub-section and was cultivat-
.. 
,, 
D.T. KADAM v. R.S. DUBAL 
421 
ing the land personally was entitled to became purchase

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