JUNJARAM versus BHAURAO AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] 2 S.C.R. 973 · Decided: 22-02-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
JUNJARAM 
v. 
BHAURAO AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 22, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Berar Regulation of Ag1icultural Leases Act. 1951/Bombay Tenancy & 
Ag1icultural Lands (Vidarbha region) Act, 1958: 
A 
B 
Sections 6(1), 19(2)! 10, 132-Agricultural Lands-Appellant a C 
tenant-SwTe11der thereof by way of a deed-Within one year filed an applica-
tion under the Berar Act for restoration-Competent auth01ity and appellate 
auth01ity held the swrender illegal and directed restitution of possession of 
lhe land to the appellant-Jn revision Deputy Commissioner set aside the 
order and remitted for fresh consideration-Pending decision Bombay Act D 
came into force-Application for restoration filed under Bombay Act 
also-Revenue TTibunal held appellant not entitled to restoration-Also held 
that respondent being widow of 01iginal landlord, protected tenancy had 
ceased against lw--Upheld by High Court-On appeal held: If the inst1ument 
is not a registered document, then the question of genuineness or fraud need 
not be gone into as the swrender gets cntshed under S.6(1) of the Berar E 
Act-In the instant case the instrumeht was not registered and the ref ore not 
binding on the appellant-17te appellant's claim is not bmred by limita-
tion-Proceedings pending under the Berar Act did not get abrogated as they 
are saved by S. 132 of the Bombay Act-On the date of swrender, 
respondent's husf,and was alive and the right was available to him-It is not 
divested by any statutory operation-High Court and T1ibunal wrongly 
proceeded on the premise that respondent being a widow, appellant c·eased to 
have any protected tenancy right for restitution of the possession of land as 
against the widow-Hence the orders of High Cowt and Tribunal set aside 
and that of 01iginal auth01ity restored. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2575 of 
1982. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.12.80 of the Bombay High 
F 
G 
Court in W.P.No. 1986 of 1974. 
H 
973 
974 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
V.A. Bobde, AK. Sanghi and Ms. Sarsa Iyer for the Appellants. 
V.B. Joshi and Umesh Bhagwat for the Respondent Nos. 1-2. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
B 
Abatement.set aside. Substitution allowed. 
Delay condoned. 
This. appeal by special leave arises from the order of the High Court 
of BoJt1bay, Nagpur Bench dated December 4, 1980 in Writ Petition No. 
C 1986/74 fiUed under Article 227 of the Constitution. The admitted facts are 
th~t the appellant was a tenant in respect of the lands situated in Brah-
manwada in Murtizapur Taluk, District Akola in Vidarbha region of. 
Mah):!.rashtra State. At the relevant time, Berar Regulation of Agricultural 
Leases Act, 1951 (Act -No. 24/5] (for short, 'Berar Act') was in vogue. The 
lands ad!Dittedly were agricultural lands admeasuring 29 acres 10 guntas in 
D Ser.ial No. 47. By ~ deed. dated January 2, 1956 lands were surrendered as 
stipulated thus : 
E 
"In the year.1955-56, he hall taken loans and executed a promissory 
note~ He discharged part of the debt. He was due of a sum of 
Rs. 300 and he was unable to discharge the same. Consequently, 
h.e W!iS surrendering his protected lease tenancy rights as a lessee 
to the landlord.in lieu of discharge of the debt." 
Subsequently, within one year he filed an application under Berar 
Act for ,its restoration to him. While the authorities, na~ly, the Mamlatdar 
F and the appdl;:i.te !!Uthority held that surrender was illegal and directed 
restitutim1 of the ppssession of the land to the appellant, in revision the 
Deputy Commissioper set aside the order and remitted the matter for fresh 
considerntiop. Pending decision, the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural 
Lands (Vkf<ffbh~ region) Act, 1958 (for short, the 'Act') had come into 
force. As ap abundant caution, an application under Section 10 was also 
G filed for restoration of possession of. self-same land. Ultimately, in this 
proceedings, the Revenue Tribunal again had held that since the appellant 
ha4. ~µrrendered the possession of the land, he is not entitled to the 
restpratiop tlte claim being barred by limitation. It was held that the 
respondent l:J~iqg a widow of the original landlord on demise of her 
H nusband, the prQte.i:;t~q tenancy had ceased against her. Therefore, the 
r '--
-
JUNJARAM v. BHAURAO 
975 
appellant is not entitled to avail of the protected tenancy rights as against A 
the widow which was upheld by the High Court in the writ petition. T

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