LexJAGAN@JAGANNATH UMAJI versus GOKULDAS HIRALAL TAWARI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
JAGAN@JAGANNATH UMAJI ' ., A )te"..,.. v. GOKULDAS HIRALAL TAWARI OCTOBER 28, 1987 B [M.M. DUTT AND M.H. KANIA, JJ.] Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) >-· Act, 1958-Whether the appellant was a deemed tenant of the lands he was cultivating, under section 6 thereof - c Under an agreement with the respondent-landlord, the appellant .l,- had been appointed to do worshipping in a temple as pujari to look after the management of two dharamshalas and to cultivate three agricul- tural, lands, and for all these services, he had been allowed to take crop share-the whole crop from the lands cultivated by him, instead of his being paid any wages in cash. The respondent filed a suit for possession D of the agricultural lands. The appellant's defence was that he was a deemed tenant as understood under section 6 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, and was in lawful cultivation of the lands. The Naib-Tahsildar, who decided the suit, passed an order, holding the appellant to be a tenant. The Sub- Divisional Officer, in appeal by the respondent, set aside the order of \,.._,, E the Naib-Tahsildar and remanded the matter. Against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, the appellant appealed in revision to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The Revenue Tribunal set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer and restored that of the Naib- ~ Tahsildar. The respondent moved the High Court. The High Court decided that the appellant was not entitled to claim the rights of a F deemed tenant, and quashed the orders of the authorities below holding ' the contrary view. The appellant appealed to this Court by Special Leave ~ against the order of the High Court. Allowing the appeal, the Court, G HELD: The appellant was lawfully cultivating the lands, having been permitted to do so by the landlord. He was not a member of the landlord's family, nor was he his hired labourer. The landlord did not ·~ belong to any of the classes specified in Sub-Section (2) of section 41. The appellant was rendering service as pujari and the service ot looking after the dharamshalas, and for these services, he had been given the H right to cultivate the lands and appropriate the crop share-the entire 672 JAGANNATH v. GOKULDAS [KANIA, .J.] 673 ,. crop instead of being paid any wages in cash. The appellant was not hit A ;.,., by the provisions of clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of section 6 of the Act, and he must be held to be a deemed tenant under the provisions of section 6. [676G-H; 677B-Cl Dahya Lal and others v. Rasul Mohammad Abdul Rahim, [1963] 3 S.C.R. 1at6, 7, referred to. B CIVIL APPELLATE 668(N) of 1971. JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. From the Judgment and Order dated 14.1.1970 of the Bombay High Court in S.C.A. No. 789 of 1969. E.C. Agarwala, Vijay Pandita and. Atul Sharma for the Appellant. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KANIA, J. This is an appeal by Special Leave against the judg- ment of a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court. \ c D The facts necessa;y for the disposal of the Appeal can be shortly stated. The Respondent before us, who was the petitioner before the Bombay High Court, is the owner of three agricultural lands described E in the judgment appealed against, situated at Talkhed, Taluk Malkapur, District Buldana in the Vidarbha area of Maharashtra. Originally, these fields belonged to one Hiralal who died in 1916. Hiralal started the construction of a dharamshala and a temple in 1912 in the said lands which construction was completed by the Respon- dent's mother during the minority of the Respondent. The Respon- F dent's mother also constructed another dharamshala on a separate piece of land. The facts on record show that Umaji, the father of the Appellant, was appointed a Pujari by the then landlord to worship the idols in the aforesaid temple and to look after the management of the dharam3halas on behalf of the landlord. Under an agreement with the landlord, the aforesaid three agricultural lands were cultivated by G Umaji but instead of being paid in cash for the services rendered by him to the landlord in the form of looking after the management of the property and worshipping in the temple, Umaji was allowed to culti- vate the said fields and to take the crops. The Appellant is the son of Umaji and records show that, after the death of Umaji, he was given the same work as
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.