LexSMT. RUKHAMANBAI versus SHIVRAM & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
607
A
SMT. RUKHAMANBAI
v.
SHIVRAM & ORS.
September 3, 1981
[D.A. DESAI, A.O. KosHAL AND R.R. MISRA, JJ.]
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, sections 2 (18), 4, 32F
and G, scope of-WMther a limited owner of agricultural land governed by the
Tenancy Act during his/her l{fe time was entitled to lease the land, and if he or
she did lease the land whether the tenant inducted by the holder of life estate
could be said to be lawfully cultivating tM land so as to acquire the statuJ
of a dee1ned tenant under section 4 of the Act and as a corollary would become a
deemed purchaser on the tillers' day-Transfer of Property Act, section 13, section
76A and construction of the deed of settlement.
Under the deed of settlement (Ex. 2A) dated MaY 22, 1930, the appellaot-
landlady acquired a life-interest in certain agricultural lands under dispute and
the reversion remainder was in her children. During her lifetime she was entitled
to enjoy the income of the property but she could not dispose of the property
by will, gift or sale. She was also under a disability to encumber the estate
though she had the right of carrying on the "vahivat" (management).
By virtue of the provisions of section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agri-
cultural Lands Act, 1948, providing that on April 1, 1957 styled as til1ers' day, a
tenant of Agricultural land covered by the said Act would be the owner of the
land held by him, if other conditions specified therein are fulfilled, the respon-
dents made five separate applications on August 27, 1962 against the appellant
before the Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Raver under section 320 for determining
the price of the land held by each of them as tenant. The appellant contested the
right of the tenant to purchase the land, inter a/ia contending that under the deed
of settlement she acquired a right only to usufruct of land involved in the dispute
and she being a limited owner and the settlement imposing certain disability on
her precluding her from dealing with the property which would indicate that she
could not have leased out the land thereby creating an encumbrance which would
be impermissible under the deed of settlement and consequently the tenant of
each piece of land could not be said to be lawfully cultivating the land so as to
become the deemed tenant under section 4 of the Tenancy Act. The respon-
dents not being tenants within the meaning of the Tenancy Act could not have
become the owner of the land on the tillers' day. Alternatively it was contended
that the minor children of the appellant, she being a limited owner had acquired
a vested right in the land and, therefore, as they were minors the date of compul-
sory purchase would be postponed under section 32F ousting the jurisdiction of
the Tribunal to determine the price under section 32G. The Tribunal allowed
:.B
c
E
F
G
H
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
608
SUPREM~ COURT REPORTS
(1982] I S,C.R,
the applications and negatived the appellant's contentions. All the five appeals
preferred by the appellant were allowed by the Co1lector of Jalgaon. The revi-
sion petitions filed by the tenants under section 76 of the Tenancy Act before the
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal were allowed holding that even though the land-
lady in these cases was a limited owner the instrument settling the property on the
landlady did not preclude her from leasing the land and the lease was accordingly
valid under section A, the tenant would be a deemed tenant within the meaning of
the Tenancy Act and such deemed tenant would become the owner of the land
held by him on the tillers' day. The appellant approached the High Court under
Article 227 of the Constitution. While rejecting the special civil applications the
High Court remanded the case to the Collector to give an opportunity to the
appellant to agitate the contention about the quantum of price as it was not
dealt with by the Collector on merits. The appellant having obtained a certifi·
cate under Article 133(1) (a) and (b) of the Constitution preferred these five
appeals.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court,
HELD : 1.
On a plain reading of the deed and the admitted position that
the appellant had leased the land to each of the respondents and in view of the
requirements of section 4 of the Tenancy Act, 1948, it is clear that the respondents
would be deemed tenants under that section. (616 E-F]
1 : 1. Section 4 comprehends within its sweep any person lawfullyExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.