Smt. Kamal Anant Kulkarni etc. Vs. Pandu Rama Yerdukar & Ors. etc.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 1171-72 of 1976.
Petitioner: Smt. Kamal Anant Kulkarni etc.
Respondent: Pandu Rama Yerdukar & Ors. etc.
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 1171-72 of 1976.
Judges: M.P. THAKKAR & N.D. OJHA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 29, 1988
Head Note:
BOMBAY TENANCY AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS ACT, 1948:
Section 4 – Deemed tenant – Respondents were cultivating land – The names of respondents recorded as tenants – No evidence to show that the respondents were cultivating servants of the owners of land – Respondents entitled to claim the status of deemed tenant – Decision of the High Court upheld.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
The High Court has recorded the finding that the respondents are deemed tenants, relying on the evidence of Janakibai and the revenue records which reveal that the names of Respondents were recorded as tenants even before 1948. At that point of time appellant Kamal had not even entered the household by reason of marriage with Anant. It is therefore spacious to contend that Janakibai and Anant have made manipulations in order to harm the interests of the appellants. It clearly emerges from the evidence that the respondents were cultivating the land. There is no evidence to show that they were cultivating as servants of the owners of the land. Under the circumstances Section 4 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 is attracted and the respondents are entitled to claim the status of deemed tenants. The High Court was therefore fully justified in holding in their favour. The appeals accordingly fail and are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
The High Court has recorded the finding that the respondents are deemed tenants, relying on the evidence of Janakibai and the revenue records which reveal that the names of Respondents were recorded as tenants even before 1948. At that point of time appellant Kamal had not even entered the household by reason of marriage with Anant. It is therefore spacious to contend that Janakibai and Anant have made manipulations in order to harm the interests of the appellants. It clearly emerges from the evidence that the respondents were cultivating the land. There is no evidence to show that they were cultivating as servants of the owners of the land. Under the circumstances Section 4 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 is attracted and the respondents are entitled to claim the status of deemed tenants. The High Court was therefore fully justified in holding in their favour. The appeals accordingly fail and are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
