GOVINDA BALA PATIL (D) BY LRS. versus GANPATI RAMCHANDRA NAIKWADE (D) BY LRS.

Citation: [2013] 8 S.C.R. 461 · Decided: 29-07-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. PRASAD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 8 S.C.R. 461 
GOVINDA BALA PATIL (D) BY LRS. 
v. 
GANPATI RAMCHANDRA NAIKWADE (D) BY LRS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1675 of 2004) 
JULY 29, 2013 
[CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD AND 
V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.] 
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948: 
s.32G - Proceedings under - Initiated by tenant -
Rejected by Additional Tehsi/dar holding that the land was 
leased out for growing sugarcane - Appellate-authority set it 
aside holding that landlord failed to prove the specific purpose 
A 
B 
c 
of the lease - Revisional Court gave its finding in favour of 0 
landlord, and held that the land was leased out for growing 
sugarcane - High Court, in writ petition set aside the order of 
revisional court - Held: The order of the authority was perverse 
as its conclusion was without reference to the evidence -
Therefore, High Court erred in setting aside the order of E 
revisional court. 
s. 43A - Applicability of - Whether applicable to single 
person - High Court in view of plural expressions in the 
provision held that the provision covers only those cases in 
which lease is given to more than one person - Held: In view 
F 
of s. 13 of Bombay General Clauses Act which provides that 
singular shall include the plural and vice versa, plural 
expression will include singular - Thus, s.43A would be 
applicable to single person - Bombay General ClausesAct, 
1904- s.13. 
Revision - Jurisdiction of revisional court - Scope of -
Held: Revisional court ordinarily does not reappraise the 
evidence - But where finding recorded by appellate authority 
is perverse, it can upset the finding of appellate authority. 
G 
461 
H 
462 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 8 S.C.R. 
A 
Evidence - Nature of evidence - In agricultural tenancy 
case - Held: Such cases are decided on the preponderance 
of probability - Principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt 
does not apply in such proceedings. 
B 
The respondent-tenant initiated proceedings u/s. 32G 
of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 for 
determination of price of the land on the pela that he shall 
be deemed to have purchased the land. The Additional 
Tehsildar held that the land in question was leased out 
by the appellant land-holder for growing sugarcane and 
C accordingly dropped the proceedings. Appellate authority 
allowed the appeal of the tenant on giving finding that the 
landlord failed to prove the specific purpose of the lease. 
Landlord filed revision petition, which was allowed by 
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal setting aside the order of 
D the appellate authority and restoring the order of the 
Additional Tehsildar. Tenant's writ petition was allowed 
by High Court setting aside the order of the Tribunal. It 
was held that the land was not leased out for cultivation 
of sugarcane and further held that s.43A of the Act would 
E not govern the field as the lease in question was not given 
to more than one person. Hence the present appeal by 
the landlord. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD: 1.1. The revisional court ordinarily does not 
reappraise the evidence, but in case it is found that the 
finding recorded by the appellate authority is perverse, 
nothing prevents it from upsetting the finding of the 
appellate authority. If the appellate authority records a 
G finding without consideration of the relevant material or 
on consideration of irrelevant material or the finding 
arrived at is such that no person duly instructed in law 
can reach at that finding, such finding in law is called 
perverse and in such a contingency, it is within the 
H jurisdiction of the revisional court to set aside the said 
GOVINDA BALA PATIL (D) BY LRS. v. GANPATI 
RAMCHANDRA NAIKWADE (D) BY LRS. 
finding. [Para 6] [467-F-H] 
463 
A 
B 
1.2. In. the present case, the finding recorded by the 
Sub-Divisional Officer (appellate authority) is patently 
perverse. The Sub-Divisional Officer fl.as referred to the 
statement of the landlord and his witnesses that the land 
was leased out for growing sugarcane but rejected the 
evidence on the ground that the "landlord and his 
witnesses have not been ab~e to prove the purpose of 
lease beyond reasonable doubt" and ultimately held that 
"the landlord has failed to prove the specific purpose of C 
the lease." While doing so, the Sub-Divisional Officer has 
lost sight of the basic principle that the nature of the 
proceeding is decided on the preponderance of 
probability and the principle of proof beyond reasonable 
doubt does not apply in su

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