http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: LAXMI BAI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DAYANU NARAYAH MOHITE (DEAD) THROUGH L.RS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT09/10/1991

BENCH: KANIA, M.H. BENCH: KANIA, M.H. SAHAI, R.M. (J)

CITATION:  1992 AIR 1899            1991 SCR  Supl. (1) 456  1992 SCC  (1)  53        JT 1991 (6)   423  1991 SCALE  (2)843

ACT: Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948:     Sections  32,  32F (1)  (a)  and  proviso--Tenant-Deemed purchaser  of land from tillers’ day--Postponement of  till- ers’ day--When arises.

HEADNOTE:     The  appellant, was a member of a joint family with  her son. She terminated the tenancy of the  predecessor-in-title of the respondents, by a notice dated June 24, 1960,  giving rise  to  litigation culminating in the appeal  before  this Court  by the appellant, on the question whether the  tenant became deemed purchaser of the land in question, in terms of Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948,  which had declared April 1, 1957 as the tillers’  day and that the tenants of the lands who fell within any of the categories described in-sub-section (1) were deemed to  have purchased the land held by them as tenants from their  land- lords, free from all encumbrances subsisting thereon on that day.  It  was contended that in view of  the  provisions  of clause (a) of subsection (1) of Section 32F of the Act,  the tillers’  day was postponed in respect of the land in  ques- tion  as  the appellant was a widow, and hence  it  must  be declared  that she had terminated the tenancy of the  tenant before he became a deemed purchaser of the land. Dismissing the appeal, this Court,     HELD: 1.1. The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 32F of  the  Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural  Lands  Act,  1948, provides  inter  alia that the tillers’ day  would  not  get postponed where the widow-land owner is a member of a  joint family, one of the members whereof was outside the protected categories mentioned under clause (a) of sub-section (1)  of Section 32F of the Act. [457 F]     1.2  In  the instant case, admittedly, the  son  of  the appellant who was joint with her did not fall within any  of the categories referred to in clause (a) of sub-section  (1) of Section 32F of the Act. Hence the predecessor-intitle  of the  respondents  became the owner of the said land  on  the tillers’  day as a deemed purchaser and the  appellant  lost her rights in the said 457

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

land. Notice given thereafter is of no avail. [457 G]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1150 of 1978.     From  the  Judgment  and Order dated  22.9.1976  of  the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Appln. No. 1544 of 1971. B. Datta, J.P. Pathak and P.H.Parekh for the Appellant. A.M. Khanwilkar for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     KANIA,  J. The facts found in this appeal show that  the appellant, Laxmi Bai, was at the relevant time a member of a joint  family  with her son, the partition  pleaded  by  the appellant not having been accepted as genuine by the author- ities concerned. She terminated the tenancy of the predeces- sor  in title of the respondents by a notice dated June  24, 1960.  Under  the  provisions of Section 32  of  the  Bombay Tenancy  and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948  (hereinafter  re- ferred to as "the said Act"), April 1, 1957, was declared as the  tillers’  day and Section 32 of the said  Act  provided biter alia that the tenants of the land who fell within  any of  categories  described  in sub-section (1)  of  the  said section were deemed to have purchased the land held by  them as  tenants from their landlords, free of  all  encumbrances subsisting  thereon on the said day. The case of the  appel- lant  is  that, in the present case, the  tillers’  day  was postponed  in view of the provisions of clause (a)  of  sub- section  (1) of Section 32 F of the said Act, as she  was  a widow and hence, it must be held that she had terminated the tenancy  of tenant, Dayanu, the predecessor in title of  the respondents before he became a deemed purchaser of the land. It is not possible to accept this contention in view of  the proviso  to sub-section (1) of Section 32 F of the said  Act which  provides, inter alia that the tillers’ day would  not get  postponed where the widow-land owner is a member  of  a joint  family,  one of the members whereof was  outside  the protected  categories  mentioned under clause  (a)  of  sub- section (1) of Section 32 F of the said Act. In the  present case, there is no dispute that the son of the appellant  who was joint with her did not fall within any of the categories referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 32 F of  the said Act. In these circumstances, Dayanu became  the owner  of  the  said land on the tillers’ day  as  a  deemed predecessor  and the appellant lost her rights in  the  said land. Notice given thereafter is of no avail. The appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. N.P.V                                                 Appeal dismissed. 458