DIGAMBAR ADHAR PATIL versus DEVRAM GIRDHAR PATIL (DIED) AND ANR.

Citation: [1995] 2 S.C.R. 133 · Decided: 21-02-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

DIGAMBAR AOHAR PATIL 
A 
_... ., 
v. 
DEVRAM GIRDHAR PATIL (DIED) AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY 21, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.) 
B 
'· 
.. Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 : Ss. 32B, 32G-
DeteT?nination of land in excess of ceiling-Fixation of price for land which 
the tenant could purchase--Partition-Held entries in Record of rights estab-
lished partitiolt-Land belonging to minor son and cultivated by f ather--Even c 
__,,,--
if it is taken as family property, holding within the ceiling limit-Remand order 
issued by High Coult for computing the land holding~pheld. 
I 
The respondents filed an applica.tion under S.32G of the Bombay 
Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 to determine the price payable to 
the appellant r'or purchase of 8 acres and 26 guntas, which was admittedly D 
in their possession as tenant. The Tribunal found that respondent no. 1 
was in possession of 54 acres of land i.e. in excess of the ceiling of 48 acres, 
and therefore· he was not entitled to purchase the land in question from 
the appellant. 
On appeal the High Court reversed the finding of the Tribunal and E 
held that the oral evidence coupled by the entries In the Record of Rights 
established that there was a partition between Respondent No. 1 and his 
..../., 
brother stood excluded; and that even assuming that the land belonging 
to the minor son & cultivated by his father respondent No.1 was con· 
sidered to be either held as a tenant or as a member of the joint family, F 
the total land held was within the ceiling limit and therefore Respondent 
no. 1 was entitled to purchase the said land of the appellant under s.32B 
of the Act. Accordingly the High Court directed the Mamlatdar to conduct 
~ 
the enquiry under S.32-G and remanded the matter for fixing the price. 
Hence this appeaL 
G 
-< 
The appellant contended that there was a concurrent finding regard-
Ing the land possessed by Respondent No. 1; that the land belonging to the 
minor son -should be included in the holdings held by the respondent-
tenant and that the alleged partition between Respondent No. 1 and his 
brother was not evidenced by any documentary evidence. 
H 
133 
134 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1995) 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The High Court was right in its conclusion that the land 
allotted to the brother of the respondent should be excluded. If that land 
is excluded necessary conclusion is that the respondent was within the 
B ceiling. limit. Consequently, he is entitled to purchase the land of the 
appellant wlio is the owner under the provisions of the Act as he is a 
deemed tenant on the tiller date under s.32 of the Bombay Tenancy & 
Agricultural Lands Act,· 1948. Whether the respondent is in excess of the 
land or not would be considered while computing the holding as ordered 
by the High Court in its remand order. [137·E] 
c 
2. S~on 3lB clearly postulates that the land held as an owner or 
as a tenant along should be taken into consideration to determine ceiling 
limit and if the land held as owner or tenant is within the. ceiling limit, he 
shall be entitled to purchase the land held by him as a tenant. Admittedly, 
D the respondent held the land as an owner to the extent of 36 acres 1 gunta. 
The area of dispute is only in respect of the land held by his minor son 
and land allotted at a partition to his brother. With regard to the land 
held by the son, even assuming that it is a joint family property for the 
purpose of the Act and it is includible in his holding yet he is within the 
E ceiling limit, namely, 43 acres 35 guntas. As rightly held by the High Court 
he cultivated it on behalf of his minor son. [136·F·G] 
3. The entries in the Record of Rights regarding the. factum of 
partition is a relevant piece of documentary evidence in support of tile oral 
evidence given by the respondent and his brother to prove tile ractum of 
Fl partition. Even in his evidence, Respondent's brother had. clearly stated 
that there was a partition but he could not give the date and year in which 
the part.ition was effected nor the deed of the partition was produced. 
Under the ffindu law, it is not necessary that the partition should be 
effected by. a rigistered partition deed. Even a family arrangement is 
G enough to effectuate the partition between coparceners and to confer right 
to a separate share and enjoyment thereof. Under those circumstances, 
wlam tbe factum of partition was evidenced by entries 

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