Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 516 of 1960. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated July 19, 1957, of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application No. 809 of 1957.

W. S. Barlingay and Ganpat Rai for the appellants. C. B. Pai, J. B. Dadachanji, S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the respondents 1-5.

B. Ganapathy Iyer and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondent No. 6 and for the State of Maharashtra (Intervener). 1962. May 3. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHAH, J.-Survey No. 126 admeasuring 11 acres and 20 gunthas of Mouje Telod, District Broach belonged to the ancestors of the appellants. By deed dated July 24, 1891, the owners mortgaged the land to one Umiyashanker with possession shortly after the mortgage, the mortagee inducted one Mohammed Abdul Rahim as a tenant on the land. The appellants as owners of the equity of redemption applied to the Court constituted under the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, 28 of 1947, for adjustment of the debt due under the deed dated July 24, 1891, and for redemption of the land mortgaged. On February 19, 1954, an award was made in this application by compromise between the parties declaring that Rs. 3,000/- were due to mortgagee under the deed dated July 24, 1891, that the land in dispute was in the possession of Mohammed Abdul Rahim as tenant of the mortgagee, and that the mortgagor had the right to take possession of the land from the said tenant." In execution of the award, Mohammed Abdul Rahim--who will hereinafter be referred to as the respondent- was evicted. On June 7, 1954, the respondent applied to the Mahalkari of Hansot for an order under s. 29 of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Land Act, 1948, restoring possession of the land. The Mahalkari rejected the application and that order was confirmed in appeal by the District Deputy collector, and by the Bombay Revenue Tribunal in revision from the order of the Deputy Collector. The High Court of judicature at Bombay was then moved by the respondent under Art. 227 of the Constitution. The High Court following its earlier judgment in Jaswantrai Tricumlal Vyas v. Bai Jiwi set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and ordered that possession of the land be restored to the respondent and declared that the respondent was entitled to continue in occupation as tenant on the same terms on which he was a tenant of the mortgagee. The mortgagors have appealed to this Court against that order of the High Court with special leave.