NARAYAN BHIMJI VADANGALE AND ANR. versus HUKUMCHAND CHUNILAL THOLE AND ANR

Citation: [1991] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 239 · Decided: 06-12-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI, G.N. RAY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
NARAYAN BHIMJI VADANGALE AND ANR. 
\i. 
HUKUMCHAND CHUNILAL THOLE AND ANR. 
DECEMBER 6, 1991 
[MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI AND G.N. RAY, JJ.] 
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. 
Sections 2(2), 63 and 85-A-Firm purchasing agricultural land in court 
auction in execution of decree-Whether firm agriculturist or non-agricultur-
A 
B 
ise depends Upon activities of its partners-Pariners, agriculturists and mem-
C 
bers of joint family, holding land beyond the ceiling limitr-Whether auction 
sale in favour of firm vaiid. 
In execution of the decree for recovery of a sum of money obtained 
by the respondent·firm, the agricultural land of the judgriient·debtor was 
attached and put to auction and the decree holder-firm with due permis-
D 
sion of the Court emerged as the successful bidder in the auction. The 
auction was later confirmed by the Executing Court, but before the 
isSuance of the sale certificate, the appellants, heirs of the judgment· 
debtor, moved an Objection Petition under Section 47 of the Code of Civil 
Procedure before the Executing Court on the ground that the auction sale E 
was violative of Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural 
Lands Act, 1948 inasmuch as the decree-holder firm was non-agricultur· 
ist. This objection was upheld by the Executing Court and affirmed in 
appeal, but the same was reversed by the High Court on the view that the 
firm being an inanimate person could neither be an agriculturist nor a 
non-agriculturist. Hence, the heirs of the Judgment-debtor filed an appeal F 
before this Court. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD : 1.1 When a firm is said to be cultivating land, it means that 
U is the partners of the firm who cultivate the land and in that sense the G 
firm cultivates it personally. The firm may be inanimate but the partners 
comprising thereof are people in flesh and blood. Whether the firm is 
agriculturist or non-agriculturist would depend upon the activities of its 
partners. [241 D] 
1.2 In the instant case, in order to determine as to whether the H 
239 
240 
SUPREME COURT ~.EPORTS 
[1991) SUPP. 3 S. C.R. 
A partners or the firm were agriculturist or not, the Executing Court 
referred the issue to the revenue Court for trial under Section 85-A of the 
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 and on the basis of its 
finding that both the partners or the firm ·were agriculturists, but as 
members or a joint family their holding was reckoned as such and was 
beyond their ceiling Omit, it sustained the objection o( the appellant and 
B held that the auction sale was violative or Section 63 or the Act. (241 E] 
1.3 Under Section 63 or the Act no person, including a Hindu joint 
family, could purchase area which would go to exceed the ceiling area to 
which he or it was entitled. It is' undisputed that the auction sale in the 
instant case has gone to swell the area of the joint family, members or 
C which were the two partners comprising the firm so as to exceed the ceiling 
area. Hence, the auction sale in favour or the respondents is void under 
sectfon 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. 
(241 F] 
D 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1903 of 1979 
From the Judgment dated 12.1.1979 of the Bombay High Court in 
Appeal No. 625 of 1975. 
· 
P.H. Parekh and BN. Agm;wal for the Appellants. 
E 
V N. Ganpule, A.B. Lal and Mrs. V.D. Khanna for the Resi)ondents. · 
The following order of the Court was delivered : 
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order 
F 
dated 12.1.1979 of the High Court of Bombay passed in Second Appeal No. 
625of1975. 
The appellants herein are heirs of the original judgment-debtor. The 
respondents herein is the decree holder firm. The decree holder firm as plaintiff 
filed a suit for recovery of a sum of money against the Defendant judgment-
debtor. The suit was decreed. In execution thereof some agricultural land of the 
G judgment-debtor was attached and put to auction. The decree holder firm with 
due permission of the Court emerged as the successful bidder at the auction. 
The auction was later confirmed by the Executing Court and a sale certificate 
was issued to the firm. 
In the meantime, before the issuance of the sale certificate, the heirs of 
H the judgment-debtor moved an Objection Petition under Section 47 of the Code 
f
t 
I ...
I 
NARAYAN BHIMJI v. HUKUMCHAND 
241 
of Civil Procedure before the Executing Court on the ground that the auctio

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