LexMUSSAMIYA IMAM HAIDER BAX RAZVI versus RABARI GOVINDHAI RATNABHAI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A MUSSAMIYA IMAM HAIDER BAX RAZVI v. RABARI GOVINDHAI RATNABHAI & ORS. August 21, 1968 B [J. C. SHAH V. RAMASWAMI AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] c D E F G. H Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural !Ands Act (Born. 67 of 1948), as amended by Bombay Amendment Act 13 of 19'56, ss. 32, 70, 85 and 88-Suit land under management of Court of Wards-Tenancy created during such management-Tenant if became statutory owner on "tillers' da.v"-Jurisdiction of civil court to •decide if tenancy subsisi!!d on rele- vant dr.. 1tes-lf barred. The appellant succeeded to the estate consisting of the suit lands when he was a minor. The State Government assumed. management of the estate under the Bombay Court of Wards Act, 1905 and appointed the Collector as the manager of the estate. While the estate was under the management of the Court of Wards on July 25, 1956. the first respon- dent wrote to the Collector that the ·respondents were forming a coope- rative society for carrying on agricultu!re, and that tho suit lands wer' required for that purpose. The Collector passed an order on July 28, 1956. The kabuliyat was executed on August 24, 1956 by the respon- dents, though no cooperative society was formed. The lease was there- fore created on August 24, 1956 and accdrding to the kabuliyat, expired on 31st May, 1957. The Court of Wards withdrew its superin- tendence on May II, 1958. Under s. 32 df the Bombay Tenancy and AgriculturaJ Lands Act, 1948 every tenant :shall be deemed to have become a ~tatutory owner of the land on 1st April, 1957 known as the "tillers' day". The Act was amended by Amending Act 13 of 1956 which came into force on August 1, 1956. The effect of the amendment was that ss. 1 to 87A were not appl'cable to an estate or land taken under the management ot the Court of Wards. Under s. 88 of the Act, after cessation of the management by the Court of Wards, the provisions of the Act would apply to such estate. There- fore, ss. 1 to 87 A of the Act were not applicable to the suit lands from August 1, 1956 to May 11, 1958. The appellant filed a suit on July 11, 1958 for recovery of possession of the suit lands and mesne profits on the ground that the lease was fraudulently obtained by the respondents. The respondents contended that they became statutory owners under s. 32 or s. 88 of the Act and that ,the civil court had no jurisdiction to hear the suit. The trial court decreed the suit. On appeaJ, the High Court held : ( 1) that the appellant had failed to establish that the lease was vitiated by fraud; (2) that the respondents had failed to establish that they had become statutory owners of the suit lands on dr before the date of suit; ( 3) that the civil court had jurisdiction to decide whether the respon- dents were tenants on the relevant dates namely July 28, 1956 or May 11, 1958, before the suit was filed. and whether they had become statutory owners, ( 4) but that the civil court had no jurisdiction to deal with the question as to whether the defendants were or were not tenants on the date of the suit tbat such question could only be decided by the Revenue !tuthori•ies and that the question should be referred to the Mamlatdar accordingly. • • 786 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 196') J I s.C.R. In appeal to this Court, A HELD : (I) On the evidence adduced, the High C-Ourt w'" right in its viey.· that the I-case in favour of the respondents was not vitiated by fraud. The evidence .sho\vcd that the lease was granted with the kno\\·lcl..lge that there v.•as no cooperative society. 1795 A.t;J (2) (a) As during tk period August I, 1956 to May II, 1958 ~cctions 1 to 87 A of 1he Act were not applicahle 10 the suit land~. s. 32 B \Vas not applicable, and therefore, the respondents could not have become statutory owners on the "tillers' day", n1entioncd in s. 32. l795 G; 796 A] (b) As provided by the Kabuliyat itself the tenancy expired on ~lay 31, 1957. That is, there was no subsisting lci1Se on May II. !958 \11hich was the date of cessation of the management by the Court of Wards. If there was no subsisting lease on' ~lay 11, 1958 the rcspon- <lents v.·erc not tenants, and the High Court was right in its viev.· that C lhe respondents had failed to establish that they had become statutory ov:ners of the land under s. 32 by virtue of the first proviso to s. 88. [796 R-E] (3) Section 70lb) of 1hc Act impose_< a duty on the Mamlatdar to decide whe[hcr a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.