{"id":140653,"date":"2008-10-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-10-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pravinkumar-vs-surat-on-10-october-2008"},"modified":"2018-12-18T03:16:50","modified_gmt":"2018-12-17T21:46:50","slug":"pravinkumar-vs-surat-on-10-october-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pravinkumar-vs-surat-on-10-october-2008","title":{"rendered":"Pravinkumar vs Surat on 10 October, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Pravinkumar vs Surat on 10 October, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: Bhagwati Prasad,&Nbsp;Honourable S.R.Brahmbhatt,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nLPA\/604\/2002\t 18\/ 18\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nLETTERS\nPATENT APPEAL No. 604 of 2002\n \n\nIn\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 2437 of 1990\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?    \n\t\t\t         YES\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?    YES\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?     \n\t\t\tNO\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?     NO\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?         NO\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nPRAVINKUMAR\nMAGANLAL PATEL - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSURAT\nPEOPLE'S CO-OP BANK LTD - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nMC BHATT for\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nMR. A.J. PATEL, ld. Adv. for MS MEGHA JANI for\nRespondent(s) :\n1, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n:   10th \/Oct \/2008 \n\n \n\n \n \nCAV\nJUDGMENT \n<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD)<\/p>\n
\t\tThe
\npresent Letters Patent Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging
\nthe judgement and order dated 14.2.2002 of this Court whereby the
\nSpecial Civil Application filed by the respondent bank was allowed by
\nthe learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has noticed that
\nthe dispute of the parties is to the land bearing Survey No. 49\/11
\nsituated in village Bhatbet, Taluka Choryasi, Dist. Surat and the
\nland bearing Survey No. 591 situated in village Pal, Taluka Choryasi,
\nDist. Surat. The appellant contended that by an agreement entered
\ninto between the appellant and the respondent bank on 13.6.1973,
\ntenancy was created in favour of the appellant. The appellant
\ncultivated the disputed land and after deducting expenses, two-third
\nshare of the net profit was given to the respondent Bank.\n<\/p>\n
2.\t\tAfter
\nconsidering the facts and arguments of the learned counsel for the
\nparties, learned Single Judge came to the opinion which reads as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
?SI
\nam of the opinion that the respondent has failed to establish that he
\nwas a tenant with respect to the said lands. The bank has
\nsuccessfully established that it was cultivating the lands personally
\nthrough hired labour. Further the Tribunal and the authority below
\nhave resorted to erroneous approach to the matter at issue. Neither
\nthe Tribunal nor the authority below has given a finding that the
\nrespondent was a tenant with respect to the said lands. Instead, the
\nTribunal and the authority below have held that the respondent was
\nnot a servant of the Bank and he, therefore, is a deemed tenant as
\nenvisaged under Section 4 of the Act. The question was whether the
\nrespondent can be said to be a deemed tenant within the meaning of
\nSection 4 of the Act and not whether he was a servant of the Bank or
\nwhat was his relationship with the Bank. The respondent may or may
\nnot be the servant of the bank. He may be said to be manager or a
\nsupervisor employed by the Bank to supervise the agricultural
\noperations on the said lands. Be that as it may, the respondent has
\nfailed to prove that he was cultivating the said lands as a tenant or
\nthat he was cultivating the said lands at all. In the cases in the
\nabove referred three judgements, the facts undisputed were that the
\ntenant concerned  was cultivating the land in question personally and
\nthat he was being paid in crop share. The facts in the said matters
\nare quite distinguishable and the said judgements shall lend no
\nsupport to the respondent herein.??\n<\/p>\n
3.\t\tImpugning
\nthe said judgement, learned counsel for the appellant stressed that
\nthe learned Single Judge has  gone wrong in not considering the true
\npurport and import of  deeming provision of Section 4 of the Bombay
\nTenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as
\n?Sthe Act?? for short) because according to learned counsel Section
\n4 of the Act gives a deeming clause and in this deeming fiction the
\nland having been cultivated by the appellant should be deemed to be
\nunder his tenancy. Section 2(18) of the Act, according to learned
\ncounsel, defines the status of a tenant and according to him includes
\na deemed tenant under Section 4 of the Act and thus if the test of
\nSection 2 is applied, there is no escape from the conclusion that the
\nappellant is a tenant in terms of Section 4 of the Act because the
\nappellant was not paid in cash and was paid in crop share if the
\nreading of the agreement of the appellant and the respondent bank is
\nconcerned. Therefore, crop share being permanent and dominant factor,
\nif that was the consideration between the bank and the appellant,
\nthere is no escape from the conclusion that the appellant was a
\ndeemed tenant and if he was a deemed tenant then the findings of the
\nlearned Single Judge deserve to be quashed and set aside.  Learned
\ncounsel has relied on a decision of this Court in the case of THAKOR
\nKESAJI RANAJI (Decd.) BY HIS HEIRS & LRs. THAKOR LILAJI KESAJI
\nVS. VALLABHDAS PARSHOTTAMDAS PARIKH reported in 1996(3) G.L.R. 849
\nand has stressed that this Court has held at paragraph 22 as follows:\n<\/p>\n
?SIt
\nis very clear from the aforesaid decision that what is required to be
\nseen and examined is whether a person has been in lawful cultivation
\nof the land who is not being paid any wages in cash or in kind but by
\nway of crop share. In that case, reliance was also placed on the
\ndecision of the Apex Court rendered in DAHYA LAL V. RASUL MOHAMMED
\nABDUL RAHIM, AIR<\/a> 1964 SC 1320 DAHYA LAL’S CASE (supra) was decided by
\na Bench of five Honourable Judges of the Apex Court. In Dahya Lal’s
\ncase (supra), the provision which came up for consideration was Sec.
\n4 of the Bombay Tenancy Act. It is clearly held in Dahya Lal’s case
\n(supra) that the Tenancy Act encompassed with its beneficient
\nprovisions not only tenants who held land for purpose of cultivation
\nunder contract from the land-owners but persons who are deemed to be
\ntenants. The ratio enunciated in the aforesaid two decisions of the
\nApex Court is attracted squarely to the facts of the present case.??\n<\/p>\n
4.\t\tThus,
\naccording to learned counsel, the findings of  learned Single Judge
\nthen are contrary to the binding decision of this Court on the point.
\nLearned counsel further relied on a decision of the Bombay High Court
\n in the case of DINKAR VITHOBA SALGAONKAR & ORS VS. SHARAD
\nJAGANNATH KULKARNI & ORS.,  reported in 1999(1) Bom. L.R.  486
\nwherein it was decided by the Bombay High Court enumerating the same
\nprovisions which are in question as under:\n<\/p>\n
?SThe
\nAppellate Court has recorded a finding that the petitioners were
\nlawfully cultivating the lands i.e. Survey Nos. 45\/13 and 45\/19.
\nAccording to the Appellate Court even this was admitted by the
\nrespondents. Those lands were belonging to the respondents. According
\nto their own case, there was crop sharing between the two. In view of
\nthis, clearly, Section 4(b) is attracted. The Appellate Court has
\nfailed to consider the import of the words `but not in crop share’
\nand has erroneously held that the petitioners have failed to prove
\nthat their case is not hit by the provisions of Section 4(b). Even
\nconsidering the case of respondents, it is not hit in respect of
\nthese lands i.e. Survey Nos. 45\/13 and 45\/19. The finding in this
\nrespect was perverse.??\n<\/p>\n
 5.\t\tIt
\nwas held that since there was crop sharing between the parties, the
\ntenants would be deemed tenants under the Act and thus the same
\nprovision which has been interpreted to be applied, the judgement of
\nlearned Single Judge is not a correct proposition of law.\n<\/p>\n
6.\t\tLearned
\nCounsel for the appellant has further relied on a decision of the
\nHon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of  JAGAN ALIAS JAGANNATH UMAJI
\nVS. GOKULDAS HIRALAL TEWARI reported in AIR 1987 SC 2429 in which the
\nHon’ble Supreme Court has held at paragraph No. 8 as under:\n<\/p>\n
?SAs
\nfar as the case before us is concerned as we have already pointed out
\nthat the appellant was admittedly cultivating the lands in question
\nand was not a member of the landlord’s family nor was he a hired
\nlabourer. The landlord did not belong to any of the classes specified
\nin sub-Sec. (2) of Sec. 41. The aforesaid cultivation was clearly
\nlawful because the respondent to whom the lands belonged had
\npermitted him to do so. It is true that the record shows that this
\nright to cultivate the land and appropriate the produce was given to
\nthe appellant because of the services he was performing as a Pujari
\nof the aforesaid temple of the respondent and as he was looking after
\nthe dharamshalas. By reason of these facts, it might be said that he
\nwas cultivating the said lands as a servant of the respondent, but he
\nwas not being paid any wages in cash or kind but by way of a crop
\nshare, the share being the entire crop. In these circumstances, he
\nmust be held to be a deemed tenant of the said lands under the
\nprovisions of S. 6 of the Vidarbha Tenancy Act. The fact of his
\ncultivating the land as a servant of the respondent would make no
\ndifference because he was being paid for his services by way of a
\ncrop share and hence was not covered by the provisions of Cl. (b) of
\nsub-sec. (1) of S. 6. The learned Judge of the High Court was in
\nerror in coming to the conclusion that merely because the appellant
\nwas a servant of the respondent, he could not be held to be a tenant
\nin respect of the said lands. The learned Judge altogether failed to
\nnotice that although the appellant was a servant, he was not given
\nwages payable either in cash or kind but by way of a crop share and
\nhence not covered by the exception carved out by Cl. (b) of sub-sec.
\n(1) of S. 6. From the observations made by the learned Single Judge,
\nit appears that he proceeded on the wrong footing that in order to be
\na deemed tenant, a person must show that his lawful cultivation owes
\nits origin to some sort of tenancy. In fact, the whole aim of S. 6 is
\nto confer deemed tenancy upon person who are not already tenants of
\nthe land in question. We may point out that this conclusion finds
\nsome support from the decision of this Court in DAHYA LAL VS. RASUL
\nMOHAMMED ABDUL RAHIM (1963) 3 SCR 1 at pp. 6-7 = (AIR 1964 SC 1320)
\ndecided by a Bench of five learned Judges of this Court. In that case
\nthe provision which came up for consideration was S. 4 of the Bombay
\nTenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, the material portion of
\nwhich runs as follows:\n<\/p>\n
?SA
\nperson lawfully cultivating any land belonging to another  person
\nshall be deemed to be a tenant if such land is not ……??\n<\/p>\n
It
\nwas  held that this Act encompassed with its beneficient provisions
\nnot only tenants who held land for purpose of cultivation under
\ncontracts from the land owners but persons who are deemed to be the
\ntenants.??\n<\/p>\n
Thus,
\nthere was no escape than to hold that the appellant was a deemed
\ntenant.\n<\/p>\n
7.\t\tLearned
\ncounsel has further relied on a decision of a Division Bench of this
\nCourt in the case of HARSHADRAI VS. PARAGJI reported in 1961 G.L.R.
\n505\t wherein it has been held at page 508 as under:\n<\/p>\n
?SIf
\ntwo views can be taken as to the construction of a document and the
\nview of the Tribunal cannot be said to be patently unsound or
\nerroneous, the High Court will not exercise its jurisdiction under
\nArticle 227 of the Constitution (vide Satyanarayan V. Mallikarjun, 62
\nBombay Law Reporter 146).??\n<\/p>\n
8.\t\tThus,
\nlearned counsel strenuously contended that by plethora of decisions
\nthe law has been interpreted in favour of the appellant that as and
\nwhen there is cultivation personally and on crop share basis, the
\nappellant was required to be declared as deemed tenant and therefore
\nlearned counsel prayed that the findings of the learned Single Judge
\nare not in accordance with law and therefore deserve to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
9.\t\tPer
\ncontra: learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the opinion
\nexpressed by the learned Single Judge is perfectly in accordance with
\nlaw because the entire case of the appellant rests on the deeming
\nlanguage of Section 4. Deeming is by fiction. Deeming provision
\ncannot be considered to be absolute and all deeming provisions have a
\ncharacter of being rebuttable. Interpreting the same Section,
\naccording to learned counsel for the respondent, the Bombay High
\nCourt in the case of  GULABRAO  M. WANI VS. HEMAKASHIRAM  GAJARE
\nreported in (1956) 59 Bombay Law Reporter 194 has held as under:\n<\/p>\n
?SIt
\nis clear from the facts of the case that opponent No. 1 is not a
\nmember of the owner’s family nor does he fall in any of the
\ncategories as mentioned in the above definition. It is, however,
\napparent that he is lawfully cultivating the land belonging to the
\napplicant. We have, therefore, to see whether he shall be deemed to
\nbe a tenant for the purposes of this Section. The phrase ?Sdeemed to
\nbe?? in our opinion raises a presumption in favour of the person
\nlawfully cultivating the land, of his being a tenant. But that
\npresumption, in our opinion, is a rebuttable presumption. The
\nexplanation to S. 4 reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t`A
\nperson shall not be deemed to be a tenant under this Section if such
\nperson has been on an application made by the owner of the land as
\nprovided under Section 2-A of the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1939, declared
\nby a competent authority not to be a tenant.’<\/p>\n
This
\nsufficiently supports our view. Section 4 in itself does not confer
\nany status of tenancy as stated above: it only raises a presumption.
\nIn our opinion, it is clear from the terms of the agreement that
\nthere was a special contractual relationship between the applicant
\nand opponent No. 1. That contractual relationship is not in the
\nnature of tenancy and, therefore, obviously opponent No. 1 is not a
\ntenant.??\n<\/p>\n
10.\t\tThus,
\nlearned counsel for the respondent contended that before deeming
\nassistance is required to be invoked, it is to be seen what is the
\nrelationship of the parties and for which learned counsel drew
\nattention of the Court towards the agreement between the parties. The
\nrelevant portion of the agreement when read in Gujarati reads as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
qetInu
\nkam suVyviS4t 4ay Ane beNkae nuksan 4ay nhI te ma3e tmae beNknI
\nnIcenI ivgtnI jmInma> jate qetI iv8yk p\/v qet mjuraenI mdd4I qetI krvanI 0e. Ane saru tul ]Tpadn 4ay
\nte ma3e qetI iv8yk p\/v 0e. sdrhu
\njmInma> ibyar`nI jrur pDe tae te tmea beNke Aapvanu> 0e. Ane
\nqet mjuraenI m>jurI p` mare beNkna nam4I  beNkna Naa`a> l[ne,
\ncukvvanI 0e. qetI kam ma3e h5 lakDu lavvu> pDe tae te A>genae
\nqcR p` mare beNk JeaDe4I na>`a l[ne krvanea 0e.sdrhu jmInma> je
\ntul ]Tpn 4ay te beNkna nam4I mare saesay3I ma> naqvanu> 0e. Ane
\ntenI iv8yk p\/vm mare beNk trf4I Ane
\nbeNkna nam pr krvanI 0e. sdrhu jmInnae kbJae beNknae 0e. Ane beNk
\ntrf4I j te jmInma> suprvIzn raqIx Ae3le mare sdrhu jmIn pr
\ng5aetIyt trIkenae 0e. jmIn mare kbjae haevanae n4I Ane te ivru^6 hu>
\nkae[ qae3I tkrar kru> tae Aa lqa`4I rd batl 4ay 0e. t4a tenI kae[
\ngervtR`u>knI tmae beNk ibn nae3Ise mne menejrma>4I 0u3ae krI
\nka!I mukae shI tema> mare kae[ tkrar levanI n4I hu> tmarI trf4I
\nsdrhu jmIn ]pr deqwa5 raqu> te bdl tmare mne qcR jta je ne3 ]pr
\n4ay tenI Aek t<tyax rkm dr v8eR AapvanI nkKI kyuR 0e.\n<\/p>\n
11.\t\tAccording
\nto learned counsel for the respondent, in the agreement the land
\nwhich was defined was also not to the extent as has been considered
\nby the Courts below and it was only 2 acres 4 gunthas  10 H. Thus,
\nthe learned counsel for the respondent urged that the interpretation
\nas given by the Bombay High Court is plain and simple and establishes
\nthe case in favour of the respondent and upholds the view taken by
\nthe learned Single Judge. The learned counsel further stressed that a
\nDivision Bench of this Court in the case of AMBALAL VALLAVBHAI PATEL
\nVS. MANGALBHAI DHULABHAI BHOI reported in 1978 G.L.R. 799 held at
\nparagraph No. 16 interpreting the same provision of law as under:\n<\/p>\n
?SSec.\n<\/p>\n
4 is not an instrument for a dishonest person to dupe a simple,
\nunwary and honest person. If a dishonest person enters into an
\nagreement of sale with another, pays a small amount towards the
\nearnest money, enters into possession in anticipation of the
\nconveyance of the title to him, deliberately commits breach of the
\nagreement, goes back upon it and claims tenancy when the intending
\nvendor seeks to recover possession of his land from him, what
\nhappens? Shall the dishonest person succeed? Will he be able to
\nachieve his evil design successfully under the protection of law? If
\nwe take this view, it will be removed from achieving its last
\nmentioned laudable objective and will operate as a fountain of
\ndishonesty and crookedness creating poverty where there is none
\nwithout removing it from any other social pocket. It cannot be
\nimagined that the Legislature, by enacting Sec. 4 in a very wide
\nlanguage, thought of trapping the honest and the simple for making
\nthem prey of the wily and the dishonest. Therefore, Sec. 4 does not
\noperate in the field of agreement of sale under which possession has
\nbeen delivered to the intending vendee.??\n<\/p>\n
12.\t\tIn
\nthis judgement, according to the learned counsel, it has been stated
\nby the learned Judge that a ?Slegal fiction?? is one which is not
\nan actual reality but which the law requires the Court to accept it
\nas a reality.  This is how the deeming clause is to be construed.
\nDeeming clause as has been interpreted by the learned Single Judge
\nhas rightly been done and there is no illegality in the same and thus
\nprayed that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
13.\t\tWe
\nhave given our thoughtful consideration to the question of fact and
\nlaw urged before us. The first and the foremost question of this
\nmatter is to look into the definition of tenant which reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
?SS.\n<\/p>\n
2(18)  – ?Stenant?? means a person who holds on lease and includes:\n<\/p>\n
(a)\ta
\nperson who is deemed to be a tenant under Section 4;\n<\/p>\n
(b)
\n    a person who is a protected tenant; and<\/p>\n
(c)
\n    a person who is a permanent tenant;\n<\/p>\n
(d)
\n    a person who, after the surrender of his tenancy in respect of
\nany land at any time after the appointed day but before the specified
\ndate has continued, or is deemed to have continued, to remain in
\nactual possession, with or without the consent of the landlord, of
\nsuch land till the specified date;\n<\/p>\n
and
\nthe word ?Slandlord?? shall be construed accordingly.??\n<\/p>\n
14.\t\tThus,
\naccording to definition of ?Stenant?? a person would be a tenant if
\nhe is a deemed tenant under Section 4. Thus, we have to see whether
\nSection 4 brings the appellant within the definition of a tenant.
\nSection 4 of the Act reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
?SSec.\n<\/p>\n
4 ?  A person lawfully cultivating any land belonging to another
\nperson shall b deemed to be a tenant if such land is not cultivated
\npersonally by the owner and if such person is not –\n<\/p>\n
(a)
\n a member of the owner’s family; or<\/p>\n
(b)
\n a servant on wages payable in cash or kind but not in crop share or
\na hired labourer cultivating the land under the personal supervision
\nof the owner or any member of the owner’s family, or <\/p>\n
(c)
\n   a mortgagee in possession.??\n<\/p>\n
15.
\nA plain reading of the language of the Section requires that a person
\nhas to be lawfully cultivating the land. The character of the
\nappellant is defined by the parties by an instrument executed by both
\nthe parties. According to that instrument, the appellant was not
\ndescribed as to be a person who would cultivate the land. In terms of
\nthe agreement, the person has been defined to be the Supervisor and
\nhe was to get the land cultivated through agricultural labourer.
\nThus, the opening sentence of Section 4 of the Act requires a person
\nto lawfully cultivate the land. This would not engulf the character
\nof the appellant to be a person lawfully cultivating the land, if at
\nall, he took some agricultural operations for himself because he only
\nwas required by the bank to have supervised the agricultural
\noperations.\n<\/p>\n
16.\t\tThe
\nagreement and arrangement to cultivate  can be seen to have been
\nnecessitated upon simple contingency that a juristic  entity like
\nbank can never personally cultivate any land at its disposal. It had
\nto fall back upon some person who can do or get done cultivation for
\nit. The term of agreement shows the appellant as a Supervisor. Thus,
\nhe on this count alone, is not covered by Sec. 4.\n<\/p>\n
17.
\nAnother factor which is canvassed by the appellant in his favour is
\nthat he is cultivating the land and is being paid by crop share. A
\nservant who is paid in cash is not included in the deeming fiction.
\nThis is a negative covenant in Section 4 that if he is paid in crop
\nshare then he could be deemed to be a tenant but then this is by such
\nexpression of language which did not stipulate that a Supervisor who
\nis paid in terms of agreement would be deemed to be a crop sharer and
\ntherefore deeming provisions of Section 4 of the Act would not come
\nto the rescue of the appellant and would not make him a person who is
\ncultivating the land lawfully. Since it cannot be construed from the
\nagreement that any lawful activity was conferred on the appellant to
\nmake his cultivation lawfully, any other provisions of Section 4
\nwould not be available to him to claim deemed tenancy.\n<\/p>\n
18.\t\tThe
\n controversy can be viewed from another angle wherein sub-section 6
\nof Section 2 defines  ?Sto cultivate personally??. Personal
\ncultivation being defined in the definition clause sub-section 6 of
\nSection 2 which is quoted hereinbelow requires the personal
\ncultivator to cultivate the land on one’s own account.\n<\/p>\n
?Ssec.\n<\/p>\n
2(6) ?  ?Sto  cultivate personally?? means to cultivate land on
\none’s own account  –\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tby
\none’s own labour, or<\/p>\n
(ii)\tby
\nthe labour of any member of one’s family, or<\/p>\n
(iii)\tunder
\nthe personal supervision of oneself or any member of one’s family, by
\nhired labour or by servants on wages payable in cash or kind but not
\nin crop share.??\n<\/p>\n
19.\t\tIf
\nthe status of the appellant is viewed from the definition clause then
\nit would be seen that the appellant was not cultivating on his own
\naccount since the appellant was not cultivating on his own account.
\nIf a reference is made to the agreement then it would be seen that it
\nwas on account of the bank the cultivation was made. Thus, he cannot
\nbe considered to be covered by the definition of ?Scultivating
\npersonally??. If he was not cultivating personally then again the
\nrequirement of section 4 that a person lawfully cultivating the land
\nwould not engulf the appellant in that.  In this regard, this may be
\nsaid that the law relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant
\nis distinguishable on account that in the case of HARSHADRAI VS.
\nPARAGJI (supra) it is stated that if two views of the construction of
\nthe document can be taken then one which has been taken should not be
\ndisturbed. Here two views are not possible from the reading of the
\nagreement which clearly specifies the appellant to be the Supervisor.\n<\/p>\n
20.
\nAs regards law relied upon in the case of THAKOR K.R. (DECD.) BY HIS
\nHEIRS VS. V.P. PARIKH (supra) suffice it to say that in this case the
\nfacts were clearly to the effect that ?Snaokar-nama?? was alleged
\nto have been executed subsequent to the tenant having come into
\npossession of the land and he was then held to be lawfully
\ncultivating the land. Naokar-nama  came subsequent to his entering as
\ntenant. Thus, the document having come into existence later, then the
\ncase is distinguishable on facts.\n<\/p>\n
21.\t\tAs
\nregards decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of DINKAR V.
\nSALGAONKAR VS. SHARAD J. KULKARNI (supra) suffice it to say that,
\nthat proceeded on the admitted facts where the respondents were said
\nto have admitted that the cultivator was lawfully cultivating the
\nland. Therefore, this case is also distinguishable. So also in the
\ncase of JAGAN ALIAS JAGANNATH UMAJI VS. GOKULDAS HIRALAL TEWARI
\n(supra) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has noticed that the
\nappellant was admittedly cultivating the land. The case has decided
\non the admitted facts.  There are no such admitted facts in this
\ncase.\n<\/p>\n
22.\t\tIn
\nthe present case, the bank could not due to its position cultivate
\nthe land. Therefore, it was required to appoint somebody to supervise
\nthe agricultural operations and in that case the ratio of AMBALAL
\nVALLAVBHAI PATEL VS. MANGALBHAI DHULABHAI BHOI (supra) clearly lays
\ndown that those who dishonestly wants to travel that character are
\nnot favoured. In any case, the discussion made by us regarding law
\nstated above clearly establishes that the case of the appellant is
\nnot covered by Section 4 of the Act because he was not lawfully
\ncultivating the land and was inducted as a Supervisor who was not
\ncultivating the land on his own account which is required for
\npersonal cultivation. In that background, the findings of the learned
\nSingle Judge are not seen to be erroneous and do not require any
\ninterference in this appeal. We accordingly uphold the judgement of
\nthe learned Single Judge and dismiss the appeal. There shall be no
\norder as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(BHAGWATI
\nPRASAD, J)<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(S.R.\n<\/p>\n
BRAHMBHATT, J)<\/p>\n
\t\tLearned
\ncounsel for the appellant requested for continuance of stay order. In
\nthe facts and circumstances of the case, we are not persuaded that
\nany case is made out for continuance of the stay order granted by
\nthis Court during the pendency of the appeal. Request is therefore
\nrejected.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(BHAGWATI
\nPRASAD, J)<\/p>\n
Dt:\n<\/p>\n
10\/10\/2008<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(S.R.\n<\/p>\n
BRAHMBHATT, J)<\/p>\n
(pkn)<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Pravinkumar vs Surat on 10 October, 2008 Author: Bhagwati Prasad,&Nbsp;Honourable S.R.Brahmbhatt,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print LPA\/604\/2002 18\/ 18 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 604 of 2002 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2437 of 1990 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-140653","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPravinkumar vs Surat on 10 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pravinkumar-vs-surat-on-10-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pravinkumar vs Surat on 10 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pravinkumar-vs-surat-on-10-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-10-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-17T21:46:50+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pravinkumar-vs-surat-on-10-october-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pravinkumar-vs-surat-on-10-october-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pravinkumar vs Surat on 10 October, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-17T21:46:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pravinkumar-vs-surat-on-10-october-2008\"},\"wordCount\":4257,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pravinkumar-vs-surat-on-10-october-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pravinkumar-vs-surat-on-10-october-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pravinkumar-vs-surat-on-10-october-2008\",\"name\":\"Pravinkumar vs Surat on 10 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-17T21:46:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pravinkumar-vs-surat-on-10-october-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pravinkumar-vs-surat-on-10-october-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pravinkumar-vs-surat-on-10-october-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pravinkumar vs Surat on 10 October, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Pravinkumar vs Surat on 10 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pravinkumar-vs-surat-on-10-october-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pravinkumar vs Surat on 10 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pravinkumar-vs-surat-on-10-october-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-10-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-17T21:46:50+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pravinkumar-vs-surat-on-10-october-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pravinkumar-vs-surat-on-10-october-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pravinkumar vs Surat on 10 October, 2008","datePublished":"2008-10-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-17T21:46:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pravinkumar-vs-surat-on-10-october-2008"},"wordCount":4257,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pravinkumar-vs-surat-on-10-october-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pravinkumar-vs-surat-on-10-october-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pravinkumar-vs-surat-on-10-october-2008","name":"Pravinkumar vs Surat on 10 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-10-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-17T21:46:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pravinkumar-vs-surat-on-10-october-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pravinkumar-vs-surat-on-10-october-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pravinkumar-vs-surat-on-10-october-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pravinkumar vs Surat on 10 October, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/140653","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=140653"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/140653\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=140653"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=140653"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=140653"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}