PATEL RAMBRAI BACHARBHAI & ANR. versus PATEL DAHYABHAI BECHARBHAI & ANR

Citation: [1966] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 146 · Decided: 04-04-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

146 
PATEL RAMBRAI BACHARBHAI & ANR. 
v. 
PATEL DAHYABHAI BECHARBHAI & Al'iR. 
April 4, 1966 
[K. SUBBA RAO A~D V. RA~ASWAMI, JJ.} 
Bombay r1gricult,,rul Debtors Ilelief Act (28 of 194i), ss. 46 and 
56-Scope of. 
The father of the first respondent sold his lands to the second 
A 
l! 
respondent but continued to be in possession. The second respondent 
C 
sold them to the appellants who were put in possession in 1934. In 
August 1945, the first respondent filed a pe!lbion against the second 
respondent, before the Debt Adjustment Board, under ss. 17, 18 and 
45 of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act. 1939, within the 
time prescribed by s. 17, alleging that the transaction with the second 
respondent was a mortgage and that the debt was liable to be ad-
justed under the Act The first appellant was impleadcd as a party 
to the petition in December 1945, beyond the time specified in s. 17. 
D 
No appeal was filed <1gainst that order. and in 1947, the Board dis-
pos<?d of the petition for adjustment of debt by directing the second 
respondent to render occounts. He appealed and, pending the appeal, 
the 1939 Art was rcpt>aled by the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Re-
1;ef Act of 1947. In 1949. the appellate Court set aside the Board's 
order and remanded the case to the C1v1l Judge, for deciding the na· 
ture of the transaction. because. under the 1947 Act. the Board was 
dissolved an:i its jurisdict'on was vested in the Civil Judge. Jn 1950, 
the first respondent's application to the Civil Judge for impleading 
E 
the second respondent also as u party to the petition for adjustment 
of the debt. was allowed. and thercaf1er, the matter was disposed of 
on merits. 
On the questions: (i) Whether the orders impleading the appel-
lants were without jurndiction. and (ii) whether the appellants had 
acquired title tc> the lands by adverse possession, 
HELD; fi) The orders were not without jurisdiction. 
Under the• rcpcald Art. if a part,- was added beyond the period 
prescribed under s. 17 of the Act. if he was added as a 
necessary 
party to a petition filt>d in time. the said order might be improper 
but not without jurisdiction. [151 C-D] 
p 
Under s. 5G of the 1947 Act. origrnal and appcilate proceedings 
initiated under the repealed Act but pending at the time 
the 1947 
Act came into force \\'ill have to be disoosed of in arcordanre with 
the substantive and procedural sections of the 1947 Act. Under s. 46 
G 
of the 1947 Act. tl~e court is empo1,1,·crcd. in a suitable case. to add 
parties under 0.1. r. Ill. Civil Procedur,• Code. and they mcv be ad-
ded irrespective of th .. lime limit prescribed under the· repealed Act 
or the time specified m ss. 4 and 24 of the 1947 Ad. [152 A-Cl 
' 
Case law referred to. 
. 
(i1l The appellants had not acquired any title bv adverse po;ses-
s10n. as the pet1t:on fnr adjustment of debt was filed .., .. ;thin 12 years 
H 
from the date- of their occupation of the suit lands. [153 F] 
• 
•• 
RAMB!llI v. DARYABHAI (Subba Rao, J.) 
147 
i· 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 386 of 
~ : ' 
1964. 
:ii 
B 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
January 10, 1962 of the Gujarat High Court in Civil Revision 
Application No. 158 of 1960. 
---C--.._ 
S. V. 
Gupte, Solicitor-General, 
S. H. Sheth .and 
M. V. 
c 
+ 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Goswami, for the appellants. 
G. L. Sanghi and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for respondent No. I. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Sobba Rao, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against 
the order of the Gujarat High Court in Civil Revision 
Application No. 158 of 1960 confirming that of the District Judge, 
Kaira, holding that the lst respondent herein was a debtor and 
directing the Civil Judge, Kapadvanj, to adjust the debt under the 
provisions of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act. 
The relevant facts may be briefly stated. 
The father of the 
first respondent owned three pieces of land bearing Survey Nos. 
93, 102/3 and 125I1 in village 
Chikhlod, Taluka Kapadwanj, 
District Kaira in the State of Gujarat. On June 9, 1933, he sold 
the same by an oral vardi to respondent No. 2 for a sum of 
Rs. 2,701/- but continued to be in possession thereof. On April 7, 
1934, the 2nd respondent sold the said lands to the I st appellant 
by an oral vardi for Rs. 2,521 I - and the !st appellant got posses-
sion thereof on the said date. In a partition that was effected in 
the joint family of the I st appellant. survey No. 93

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