lAXMI BAI v. D. N. MOHITE [KANIA, J.)
457
land. Notice given thereafter is of no avail. (457 G]
A
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1150of1978 ..
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.9.1976 of the Bombay High
Court in Special Civil Appln. No. 1544 of 1971.
B. Datta, J.P. Pathak and P.H.Parekh for the Appellant.
A.M. Khanwilkar for the Respondents.
·The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KANIA, J .. The facts found in this appeal show that the appellant,
Laxmi Bai, was at the relevant time a member of a joint family with her son,
B
the partition pleaded by the appellant not having been accepted as genuine C
by the authorities conc~rned. She terminated.the tenancy of the predeces-
sor in title of the respondents by a notice dated June 24, 1960. Under the
provisions of Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands
Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to.as "the said Act"), April 1, 1957, was
deelared as the tillers' day and Section 32 of the said Act provided inter atia
. that the tenants of the land who fell within any of categories described in D
sub-section (1) of the. said section were deemed to have purchased the land
held by them as tenants from their landlords, free of all encumbrances
subsisting thereon on the said day. The case of the appellant is that, In the
present case, the tiUers' day was postponed in view· of the provisions of
cla'Use (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 32 F of the said Act, as she was· a
widow and hence, it must be held that she had terminated the tenancy of E
tenant, Dayanu, the predecessor in title of the respondents before he be-
came a deemed purchaser of the land. It is not possible to accept this
contention in view of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 32 F of the
said Act which provides, inter alia that the tillers' day would not get
postponed where the widow-land owner is a member of a joint family, one
of the members whereof was outside the protected categories mentioned F
under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 32 F of the said Act. In the
present case, there is no dispute that the ion of the appellant who was joint
with her did not fall within any of the categories referred to in clause (a) of
sub-section (1) of Section 32 F of the said Act. In these circumstances,
Dayanu became the owner of the said land on the tillers' day as a deemed
• predecessor and the appellant lost her rights in the sai.d land. Notice given G
thereafter is of no avail.
The appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.
N.P.V
Appeal di5mmed.
Lex