Vithoba Thakurdas Ambekar Since ... vs Kisan Nana Ingole Since Deceased ...
2002 Latest Caselaw 1236 Bom

JUDGMENT

S.A. Bobde, J.

1. The petitioner is the heir of the deceased landlady Krishnabai. He acquired the suit land in a partition effected in the family of Krishnabai on 24-3-1958.

2. One Kisan Ingole, predecessor of the respondent, was a tenant on 1-4-1957. The A.L.T., Pandharpur, held by its order dated 28-4-1978 that since Krishnabai was a widow, the tiller's day was postponed. That during the period of postponement, the interest in property came to the lot of Pandurang by way of partition dated 24-3-1958. When the property came to Pandurang, he was a minor. He became a major on 18-10-1962. Therefore, Kisan ought to have sent an intimation that he intends to exercise his right of purchase within a period of two years on the date on which Pandurang attained majority. Since Kisan did not do so, he was not entitled to purchase the land under Section 32G. The purchase, therefore, was declared ineffective and possession of the land was directed to be taken from the tenant and disposal of the land was directed under Section 32B of the Act.

3. Krishnabai carried the matter in appeal. The Asstt. Collector, Pandharpur, who decided the appeal on 30-9-1985 dismissed the appeal. The Asstt. Collector observed that Krishnabai was aware of the birth date of the landlord and the landlord i.e. Pandurang had sent a notice to the tenant on 5-12-1962 giving an intimation that he had become a major.

4. The tenant Krishnabai filed a revision application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has reversed the findings of the Courts below and has remanded the matter back to the Tahsildar for proceeding under Section 32G and to fix the purchase price of the land by the respondent. While allowing the revision, the Tribunal has observed that the attempt by the landlady to obtain an exemption certificate under Section 88C by making an application on 24-12-1959 was of no consequence whatsoever because the landlady had lost right, title and interest in the land upon partition on 24-3-1958. After that date, it was Pandurang alone who owned the land. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in particular took note of the fact that the landlady Krishnabai had applied for possession of the land. This application was rejected on 18-2-1958. Therefore, the tenant right to purchase crystallised on the date of rejection of the application. Moreover, the M.R.T. held that the Act does not contemplate postponement of the tiller's day, once a person of the exempted category is succeeded by another of the exempted category. The M.R.T. took note of the fact that Pandurang, the landlord, expired in the year 1965 and Krishnabai, the landlady, died on 7-1-1971.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties, I am satisfied that the order of the M.R.T. is not liable to be interfered with. It is well-settled law by two decisions of this Court that when a landlord under disability applies for possession for personal cultivation under Section 31(3) and that application either results in it being granted part or rejected, the tenant becomes a statutory purchaser of the remaining land or the whole land, as the case may be, on the date of its rejection vide Shrikant Trimbak v. Dhondi D. Jadhav, 1973 Mh.L.J. 283 = 1973 T.L.R. 212 and a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Nago Dattu Mahajan v. Smt Yeshodabai Huna Mahajan, 1976 B.L.R. 427. In the latter decision, this Court has observed :--

"Section 32F(1)(a) will not be attracted, when the widow or any such other disabled landlord seeks resumption under Section 31(1) before March 31, 1957, without regard to whether he or she fails or succeeds in the attempt. It will not apply even if such an application for resumption is rejected. Due to exhaustion of such right, the landlord cannot avail of Section 31(3) in spite of being a disabled landlord."

In the present case, there is no dispute that Krishnabai had made such an application before the said date and that application which was registered as Case No. 607/57 was rejected on 18-2-1958.

6. Moreover, the learned M.R.T. has found that the partition which is said to be before the date prescribed by the proviso to Section 32F(1)(a) has not been proved to have been effected equitably and, therefore, there was no postponement of the right to purchase. Therefore, the tenant became owner of the date on which the application for possession was rejected i.e. 18-2-1958.

7. Having regard to the facts of the present case, I am satisfied that the M.R.T. was justified in interfering with the order since the orders of the Courts below were contrary to law.

8. In the result, there is no merit in the petition. The rule is discharged. No order as to costs.

9. P. S. to give ordinary copy of this judgment to the parties concerned.