RAGHUNATH versus POPAT LAL AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] 2 S.C.R. 660 · Decided: 14-02-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAGHUNATH 
v. 
POPAT LAL AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 14, 1996 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY ANDS. SAGHIR AHMED, JJ.] 
Bombay Tenancy and Aglicultural Lands Act, 1948 : 
Tenants purchasing the equity redemption of lands for considera-
C tion-One of the tenants selling the undivided interest in the land to the 
mother of the appellant-Mamlatdar and appellate auth01ity recorded a 
finding that the lesser 1ight of tenancy stood merged with the tenants' larger 
1ight as owners and they no longer remained tenants and the purchaser alone 
was held to be owner of the undivided share in the land-High Court reversing 
the order-~n appeal, held, the respondents 2 and 3 and the appeliant 
D became co-owners in the property and entitled to p01tition after redemption 
of 11101tgage in equal moiety and enjoyment thereof-Respondents to deposit 
the sum as directed in the prelimin01y decree-on such deposit being made, 
llial cowt to draw up the final decree within four weeks and to deliver 
possession of his share of land to the appellant within six weeks thereafter. 
E 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1990 (N) 
of 1979. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.3.76 of the Bombay High 
Court in A. No. 584 of 1974. 
Mrs .. T.S. Wad, Manoj Wad and Mrs. S. Usha Reddy for the Appel-
lants. 
G.B. Sathe and AS. Bhasme for the Respondents. 
G 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The only question is whether the respondents can claim right as 
tenants to the possession of the demised lands under the Bombay Tenancy 
and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act')? The admitted facts 
are that the land originally belonged to one Lilachand Bhandari. He 
H hypothecated the lands on July 27, 1942 in favour of one Hirachand, the 
660 
f J 
• 
... 
. -r 
-... 
RAGHUNATH v. POPAT LAL 
661 
father of respondent Nos. 1 and 4 (defendants 1 & 4) under the possessory A 
mortgage. In 1947- 48 Hirachand leased those lands to respondent Nos. 2 
and 3 (defendants 2 & 3). While remaining to be tenants, respondent No.2 
had purchased the equity of redemption of the suit lands for a sum of Rs. 
12,000 on December 27, 1949. The second respondent in turn sold half of 
the undivided interest in the land to one Housabai, mother of the appellant 
on January 19, 1950. From these facts the question arose : whether the 
second and the third respondents remained to be tenants in the land after 
the Act had come into force? When the matter was referred to Mamlatdar 
for decision, a finding was recorded by him and also by the appellate 
authority that the property having been purchased by way of equity of 
redemption, the lesser right of tenancy stood merged with their larger right 
as owners and that, therefore, the respondents no longer remained to be 
B 
c 
the tenants; consequently the appellant alone was held to be the owner of 
undivided share in the land and the respondent could not claim tenancy 
rights under the Act. But, unfortunately, the High Court in Second Appeal 
reversed the said finding and held in the impugned order that the respon-
D 
dents remained to be tenants and that, therefore, the Act got attracted. 
The appellant thereby had to surrender his rights to the tenants. Thus this 
appeal by special leave. 
It would be seen that though the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had come 
into possession as tenants in the year 1947-48 from the mortgagee E 
Hirachand, after the second respondent's purchase of the equity of 
redemption on December 27, 1949, they became absolute owner of the suit 
property. Thereby, their lesser tenancy rights which they had under the 
mortgagee Hirachand, stood merged with their larger interest as owner of 
the lands. Thereby on and from December 27, 1949 they ceased to be the 
p 
tenants. Having sold the undivided half land to the mother of the appellant 
who has since died and the appellant havifig succeeding the land by 
intestate succession by registered conveyance dated January 19, 1950 they 
became co-owners in the property. Thereby, they are ~ntitled to partition 
of the same after redemption of the mortgage in equal moiety and enjoy-
ment thereof. The suit of the appellant, therefore, is clearly maintainable. G 
It is accordingly to be decreed. 
We are informed that pursuant to the preliminary decree granted by 
the trial Court, the appellant had deposited a sum of Rs. 4,000 as directed 
in the preliminary decree but it would appear that the respondents have H 
662 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] 2 S.C.R. 
A not

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