{"id":174372,"date":"2006-08-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-08-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudam-ganpat-kutwal-p-a-holder-of-vs-shevantabai-tukaram-gulumkar-on-18-august-2006"},"modified":"2018-08-14T21:42:29","modified_gmt":"2018-08-14T16:12:29","slug":"sudam-ganpat-kutwal-p-a-holder-of-vs-shevantabai-tukaram-gulumkar-on-18-august-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudam-ganpat-kutwal-p-a-holder-of-vs-shevantabai-tukaram-gulumkar-on-18-august-2006","title":{"rendered":"Sudam Ganpat Kutwal P.A. Holder Of … vs Shevantabai Tukaram Gulumkar … on 18 August, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Sudam Ganpat Kutwal P.A. Holder Of … vs Shevantabai Tukaram Gulumkar … on 18 August, 2006<\/div>\n
Author: Raveendran<\/div>\n
Bench: Arijit Pasayat, R. V. Raveendran<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  3128 of 2000\n\nPETITIONER:\nSudam Ganpat Kutwal P.A. Holder of Shankar Sitaram Bhosle\n\nRESPONDENT:\nShevantabai Tukaram Gulumkar (dead) by LR Maruti Shankar Pachpute\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 18\/08\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nArijit Pasayat & R. V. Raveendran\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
RAVEENDRAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tThis appeal by special leave is against the order dated
\n9.7.1999 passed by the Bombay High Court rejecting W.P.
\nNo.2599 of 1999 filed by the appellant. It is stated that  ‘Sudam
\nGanpat Kutwal’ shown as appellant is the P.A. Holder of
\nShankar Sitaram Bhosle, that he had filed W.P. No.2599\/1999
\nas the Attorney holder of Shankar Sitaram Bhosle, that he filed
\nthe SLP also as Attorney holder of Shankar Sitaram Bhosle, but
\nthat has not been stated in the cause title due to oversight,
\nthough he has specifically mentioned this fact in his rejoinder
\naffidavit filed on 26.4.2000. In view of it, the appellant is
\npermitted and directed to amend the cause title so as to describe
\nhim as P.A. Holder of Shankar Sitaram Bhosle. In view of it,
\nthe term appellant in this order would refer to Shankar Sitaram
\nBhosle.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThe appellant’s case in brief is as follows :\n<\/p>\n
2.1)\tThe appellant was inducted as the tenant of agricultural
\nland bearing Gat No.332 in village Jogwadi, Taluk Baramati,
\nDistrict Pune, measuring 25 acres 9 Guntas, in the year 1954
\nand was cultivating the same personally.\n<\/p>\n
2.2)\tUnder section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and
\nAgricultural Lands Act, 1948 (‘Act’ for short), on the first day
\nof April, 1956 (referred to as ’tillers day’), every tenant was
\ndeemed to have purchased the land held by him as tenant, from
\nhis landlord, free from all encumbrances subsisting thereon, on
\nthe conditions stated therein being fulfilled. The revenue
\nrecords show that though the appellant was registered as the
\ntenant of the said land on the tillers day, his right to purchase
\nunder the deemed purchase was postponed as the landlord was a
\nwidow.\n<\/p>\n
2.3)\tThe landlord (Anusuyabai Bhosle) filed an application
\n(Tenancy Application No. 3\/1958) under Section 31 read with
\nSection 29 of the Act, seeking possession of the land in the
\noccupation of the Appellant tenant on the ground that she
\nrequired the land for her personal cultivation. The Tenancy
\nAwal Karkun, Baramati, accepted the claim of the landlord and
\nmade an order dated 30.6.1960 directing that possession of half
\nof the land should be delivered to the landlord for her bona fide
\npersonal cultivation and possession of the remaining half shall
\nremain with the tenant. In pursuance of it, the appellant
\ndelivered half of the land (the eastern portion) to Anusuyabai
\nand continued in possession of the remaining half portion. It is
\nalleged that Anusuyabai sold the land which she got for her
\npersonal cultivation, to others under different sale deeds.\n<\/p>\n
2.4)\tAnusuyabai thereafter filed Tenancy Case No.95\/1964
\nbefore the Mamlatdar, Baramati, seeking possession of the
\nremaining half of the land on the ground that the appellant had
\ncommitted certain defaults. The Mamlatdar rejected the said
\npetition by the following order dated 9.2.1965 :\n<\/p>\n
“The applicant has already taken possession of half of the
\nsuit land from the opponent tenant. She has now applied to
\nobtain possession of remaining half land on the ground of
\ndefaults. The opponent has already paid the rent due to the
\napplicant by money order. The opponent has produced the
\nmoney order receipt in the matter. It is therefore clear that
\nthe opponent is not the intentional defaulter. I cannot
\ntherefore grant the request of the applicant to hand over the
\npossession of the remaining half land. The request of the
\napplicant is therefore refused. The application of the
\napplicant is therefore dismissed. The parties should bear
\ntheir own cost.”\n<\/p>\n
2.5)\tThe landlord Anusuyabai died on 23.3.1975, and
\nthereafter, the  name of her sister Shevantabai was entered as
\nher successor-in-title in the record of rights. The said
\nShevantabai filed Application No.72\/1994 under Section 32P
\nread with Section 32F of the Act on 19.1.1994 for a declaration
\nthat the deemed statutory purchase by the tenant be declared as
\nvoid and ineffective, as the tenant had failed to fulfil the
\nmandatory requirement of giving a notice of intimation of
\npurchase within the time stipulated, under Section 32F (1A) of
\nthe Act.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tThe Agricultural Land Tribunal made an order dated
\n30.4.1994 accepting the contention of Shevantabai that the
\ntenant had failed to issue a notice of purchase. The tenant was,
\ntherefore, directed to deliver possession to Shevantabai under
\nSection 32P(2)(b) of the Act. Feeling aggrieved, the tenant filed
\nan appeal under Section 74 of the Act before the Sub-Divisional
\nOfficer, Baramati Division, in Tenancy Case No.35\/1994. The
\nappellate authority by order dated 2.6.1995, set aside the order
\nof the Tribunal and remitted the matter to the Tribunal, to hold
\na detailed inquiry into the matter with reference to the earlier
\nproceedings.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tThe Land Tribunal held an inquiry and made an order
\ndated 30.9.1995, reiterating its earlier finding that the tenant
\nhad failed to serve a notice of purchase within the stipulated
\ntime and, therefore, had lost the right to purchase the land. The
\nappellant challenged the said order also in appeal (Tenancy
\nCase No.27\/1995) before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Baramati.
\nShevantabai and the Respondent herein who was representing
\nher then, were the respondents in the said appeal.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tDuring the pendency of the appeal, Shevantabai died on
\n15.4.1996. The said appeal was allowed, in part, by order dated
\n22.4.1996. The Appellate Authority upheld the order of the
\nTribunal to the extent that the tenant had failed to exercise his
\nright by issuing a notice as required under Section 32F (1A) of
\nthe Act. It, however, set aside the direction to the appellant to
\ndeliver the land to Shevantabai, as that portion of the order was
\npassed without holding any enquiry as to landlord’s right to
\nterminate the tenancy. Consequently, the Land Tribunal was
\ndirected to hold a separate enquiry regarding the right of the
\nlandlord under section 31 read with Section 32F and then, if
\nnecessary, a separate enquiry under section 32P.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tBoth parties, that is the respondent herein (as legal heir of
\nSevantabai, claiming to be legatee under her will) as also the
\nappellant, challenged the order dated 22\/24.4.1996 passed by
\nthe Sub-Divisional Officer before the Maharashtra Revenue
\nTribunal by filing revision petitions. The Revenue Tribunal by
\nits common order dated 4.1.1999 rejected the appellant’s
\nrevision and allowed in part, the Respondent’s revision. It held
\nthat after the death of Anusuyabai, the tenant had not exercised
\nhis right to purchase the land, by giving an intimation as
\nrequired under section 32F(1A) within the stipulated time and
\ntherefore, his right to purchase became ineffective and the
\ntenancy came to an end. It also set aside the direction of the
\nSDO that a separate inquiry should be held regarding the right
\nof landlord under Section 31 read with Section 32F, followed, if
\nnecessary, by a separate inquiry under Section 32P. A direction
\ncame to be issued for delivering possession of the disputed land
\nto the Respondent under Section 32P.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tThe appellant challenged the order of the tribunal in W.P.
\nNo.2599\/1999. Before the High Court, the appellant contended
\nthat the landlord (Anusuyabai) though a widow, had exercised
\nher right of terminating the tenancy and seeking possession of
\nthe land;  and that in pursuance of the order passed in such
\nproceedings, he had delivered half of the land and therefore the
\nquestion of the successor-in-title of Anusuyabai seeking
\npossession of the balance land which remained with the tenant
\n(under section 31 B(1) of the Act), did not arise. The Bombay
\nHigh Court dismissed the said writ petition by order dated
\n9.7.1999 holding that the appellant had failed to prove from the
\nrecords produced, that Anusuyabai had exercised the right to
\nget back possession under section 31(1) of the Act or that the
\nconcerned authority had ordered delivery of half of the land to
\nher. The said order is challenged by the tenant in this appeal by
\nspecial leave.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tThe appellant contended that the High Court committed a
\nserious error in holding that the records before it did not show
\nhalf of the land was ordered to be delivered to the landlord
\nAnusuyabai under section 31 (1) of the Act. He referred to the
\nHigh Court record which contained a copy of the order dated
\n2.6.1995 of the SDO in Tenancy Case No.35\/1994 as an
\nannexure to the writ petition, wherein it is clearly stated thus :\n<\/p>\n
“This mutation states that the landlady was widow and the
\nright of tenants to purchase the suit property is postponed.
\nHowever, later on there was proceedings under the
\nTenancy Act. The intimation of this Case No.3\/1958 in
\nTenancy Case No.518\/60 is present in lower court’s papers.
\n(Page 91) which shows that half of the suit land was
\nordered to be handed over to the landlady”\n<\/p>\n
The appellant has also produced in this Court, a copy of the
\norder dated 30.6.1960 in Tenancy Case No.3\/1958 directing
\ndelivery of possession of half of the land to Anusuyabai. The
\nlearned counsel for the respondent did not dispute the fact that
\nhalf of the land had in fact, been delivered by the tenant to
\nAnusuyabai in pursuance of the order dated 30.6.1960. This is
\neven referred to in the list of dates submitted on behalf of
\nrespondent.\tTherefore, the facts that Anusuyabai had exercised
\nher right to seek possession under Section 31(1), that the
\nconcerned Authority had made an order directing the tenant to
\ndeliver half the land to Anusuyabai for her personal cultivation
\nand that Anusuyabai took possession of half the tenanted land,
\nare not in dispute.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tThe dispute in this appeal relates to the question as to
\nwhether it was necessary for the tenant to issue a notice of
\nintimation of purchase under Section 32F (1A) of the Act to the
\nsuccessor-in-title of Anusuyabai in regard to the half portion
\nretained by him under section 31 B (1) read with section 31(1)
\nof the Act and whether the failure to do so resulted in forfeiture
\nof the tenant’s right to the said land or right to purchase the said
\nland under the Act.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tReference to relevant Sections of the Act will be useful
\nto decide this question.\n<\/p>\n
10.1)\tSection 29 deals with the procedure of taking possession.
\nSub-section (2) of section 29, as it stood at the relevant point of
\ntime (prior to commencement of Mah. Act 39 of 1964),
\nprovided that no landlord shall obtain possession of any land
\nheld by a tenant except under an order of the Mamlatdar, and
\nthat for obtaining such order he shall make an application in the
\nprescribed form within a period of two years from the date on
\nwhich the right to obtain possession of the land, is deemed to
\nhave accrued to him.\n<\/p>\n
10.2)\tChapter III of the Act deals with the special rights and
\nprivileges of tenants and provisions for distribution of land for
\npersonal cultivation. Part I of the said Chapter (section 31 to 31
\nD) relates to termination of tenancy for personal cultivation and
\nnon-agricultural use. Part II (section 32 to 33) relates to
\npurchase of land by tenants. Section 31 relates to landlord’s
\nright to terminate tenancy for personal cultivation. Sub-section
\n(1) enables the landlord to terminate the tenancy of any land
\nafter giving notice and making an application for possession as
\nprovided in sub-section (2), if the landlord bona fide requires
\nthe land for cultivating it personally. Sub-section (2) stipulates
\nthat the notice required to be given under sub-section (1) shall
\nbe in writing, shall state the purpose for which the landlord
\nrequires the land and shall be served on the tenant on or before
\n31.12.1956 and a copy of such notice shall, at the same time, be
\nsent to the Mamlatdar, and an application for possession under
\nSection 29 shall be made to the Mamlatdar on or before the
\n31.3.1957. Sub-section (3) provides as follows :\n<\/p>\n
“(3) Where a landlord is a minor or a widow, or a person
\nsubject to mental or physical disability, then such notice
\nmay be given and an application for possession under
\nSection 29 may be made –\n<\/p>\n
i)\tby the minor within one year from the date on
\nwhich he attains majority;\n<\/p>\n
ii)\tby the successor-in-title of a widow within one year
\nfrom the date on which her interest in the land
\nceases to exist;\n<\/p>\n
iii)\twithin one year from the date on which mental or
\nphysical disability ceases to exist.”\n<\/p>\n
10.3)\tSection 31B provides that in no case a tenancy shall be
\nterminated under Section 31 in such a manner as will result in
\nleaving with a tenant, after termination, less than half the area
\nof the land leased to him. Section 31C provides that the tenancy
\nof any land left with the tenant after the termination of the
\ntenancy under section 31 shall not at any time afterwards be
\nliable to termination again on the ground that the landlord bona
\nfide requires that land for personal cultivation. Section 31D
\nprovides that if in consequence of the termination of tenancy
\nunder section 31, any part of the land leased is left with the
\ntenant, the rent shall be apportioned in the prescribed manner in
\nproportion to the area of the land left with the tenant.\n<\/p>\n
10.4)\tSection 32(1) provides that on the first day of April, 1957
\n(tillers’ day) every tenant shall, subject to the provisions of the
\nnext succeeding sections, be deemed to have purchased from
\nhis landlord, free of all encumbrances subsisting thereon on the
\nsaid day, the land held by him as tenant, if <\/p>\n
“a) \tsuch tenant is a permanent tenant thereof and cultivates
\nland personally;\n<\/p>\n
b) \tsuch tenant is not a permanent tenant but cultivates the
\nland leased personally; and <\/p>\n
(i)\tthe landlord has not given notice of termination of
\nhis tenancy under section 31; or\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tnotice has been given under section 31, but the
\nlandlord has not applied to the Mamlatdar on or
\nbefore the 31st day of March 1957 under section 29
\nfor obtaining possession of the land; or\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\tthe landlord has not terminated this tenancy on any
\nof the grounds specified in section 14, or has so
\nterminated the tenancy but has not applied to [the
\nMamlatdar on or before the 31st day of March 1957
\nunder section 29 for obtaining possession of the
\nlands :”\n<\/p>\n
The words ‘subject to the provisions of the next succeeding
\nsections’ in Section 32(1) was amended as ‘subject to other
\nprovisions of this section and the provisions of the next
\nsucceeding sections’ and the following was inserted as sub-
\nsection (3), by Bom. Act 63 of 1958 :\n<\/p>\n
“(3) In respect of the land deemed to have been purchased
\nby a tenant under sub-section (1) —-\n<\/p>\n
a)\tthe tenant-purchaser shall be liable to pay to the
\nformer landlord compensation for the use and occupation of
\nthe land, a sum equal to the rent of such land every year,
\nand <\/p>\n
b)\tthe former landlord shall continue to be liable to
\npay to the State Government the dues, if any, referred to in
\nclauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of sub-section (1) of section
\n10A, where the tenant-purchaser is not liable to pay such
\ndues under sub-section (3) of that section until the amount
\nof the purchase price payable by the tenant-purchaser to the
\nformer landlord is determined under section 32H.\n<\/p>\n
10.5)\tSection 32F deals with the right of tenant to purchase
\nwhere landlord is minor, or a widow, or a person subject to any
\nmental or physical disability. Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of
\nsection 32F provides that notwithstanding anything contained in
\nthe preceding sections, where the landlord is a widow, the
\ntenant shall have the right to purchase such land under section
\n32 within one year from the expiry of the period during which
\nsuch landlord is entitled to terminate the tenancy under section\n<\/p>\n
31. Sub-section (1A) of section 32F inserted by Bombay Act 38
\nof 1957, reads thus :\n<\/p>\n
“(1A) A tenant desirous of exercising the right conferred on
\nhim under sub-section (1) shall give an intimation in that
\nbehalf to the landlord and the Tribunal in the prescribed
\nmanner within the period specified in that sub-section :”\n<\/p>\n
Sub-section (2) of section 32F provides that the provisions of
\nsection 32 to 32F and 32G to 32R shall, so far as may be
\npossible, apply to such purchase.\n<\/p>\n
10.6)  Section 32G requires the Tribunal to issue notice to the
\nparties, as soon as may be, after the tillers’ day, record the
\nstatement of the tenant, whether he is willing to purchase the
\nland and then determine the price of the land to be paid by the
\ntenant. Sub-section (5) provides that in the case of a tenant who
\nis deemed to have purchased the land on the postponed date, the
\nTribunal shall, as soon as may be, after such date, determine the
\nprice of the land.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tThe position as disclosed by a combined and harmonious
\nreading of Sections 31, 32, 32F and 32G may be stated thus :\n<\/p>\n
a)\tWhere the landlord has not served on the tenant, a
\nnotice of termination (as stated in clause (b) of sub-
\nsection (1) of section 32), the tenant is deemed to
\nhave purchased the land on the tillers day
\n(1.4.1957);\n<\/p>\n
b)\tWhere the tenant is deemed to have purchased the
\nland on the Tillers Day (1.4.1957), the Lands
\nTribunal is required to issue notice and determine
\nthe price of land to be paid by tenant. Where there is
\na deemed purchase, but the right to purchase is
\npostponed, the Land Tribunal shall determine  the
\nprice of land, as soon as may be after the postponed
\ndate.\n<\/p>\n
c)\tA landlord had a right to give notice and make an
\napplication for possession after terminating the
\ntenancy, if he wanted the land bona fide for
\npersonal cultivation, provided the notice was served
\non the tenant on or before 31.12.1956 (with copy to
\nMamlatdar) and application for possession under
\nsection 29 was filed on or before 31.3.1957.\n<\/p>\n
d)\tA landlord widow is also entitled to make an
\napplication for possession under sub-section (1) of
\nsection 31 of the Act. Sub-section (3) of section 31
\nwhich is an enabling provision, extends the time
\nwithin which the widow can seek possession under
\nsection 31(1) of the Act, beyond 31.12.1956. As a
\nresult, where the landlord is a widow, then the
\nnotice required under sub-section (1) of section 31
\nmay be given and the application for possession
\nunder section 29 may be made by her so long as her
\ninterest in the land exists. Such notice can also be
\ngiven by the successor-in-title of the widow within
\none year from the date on which the interest of the
\nwidow in the land ceases to exist.\n<\/p>\n
e)\tWhere the landlord is a widow (and she does not
\nexercise her right under section 31(1) of the Act),
\nthe right to purchase under the deemed purchase is
\npostponed till the expiry of the period during which
\nsuch (disabled) landlord is entitled to terminate the
\ntenancy under section 31 (3). The tenant desirous of
\nexercising such right shall, however, given an
\nintimation in that behalf to the landlord and the
\ntribunal within one year thereafter, as required
\nunder section 32F (1A).\n<\/p>\n
Consequently, where the landlord, being a widow as
\non 1.4.1957, does not choose to terminate the
\ntenancy for personal cultivation, the tenancy
\ncontinues during her lifetime and on the death of the
\nwidow, her successor-in-title will have the right to
\nterminate the tenancy within one year from the date
\nof death of the widow. The tenant shall have the
\nright to purchase such land, under section 32, within
\none year from the expiry of the period during which
\nsuch successor-in-title of the widow is given the
\nright to terminate the tenancy under section 31 (3)
\nby giving an intimation as required under section
\n32F(1A).\n<\/p>\n
f)\tWhere a landlord, who is a widow, exercises her
\nright of termination and secures possession of part
\nof the tenanted land for personal cultivation under
\nsection 31(1) of the Act, then there is no question of
\nher successor-in-title  giving a notice of termination
\nwithin one year from the date on which the widow’s
\ninterest ceases to exist. When section 31 (3) ceases
\nto apply, section 32F also will not apply and there is
\nno need for the tenant to give any intimation under
\nsection 32F(1A).\n<\/p>\n
g)\tOn an order for possession being made in favour of
\na widow-landlord in regard to land up to 50% of the
\ntenanted land under section 31(1) read with section
\n31B(1), the widow will get possession of such land
\nand the tenant continues in possession in regard to
\nthe remaining land. In regard to the land remaining
\nwith the tenant, rent has to be fixed under section
\n31D, until the purchase price is determined under
\nsection 32G(5) and is paid by the tenant purchaser.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tIf Anusuyabai, the widow landlord who died on
\n23.3.1975, had died without exercising her right under section
\n31(1) of the Act, and without taking back half the tenanted land,
\nher successor-in-title could have exercised the right of
\ntermination for personal use by issuing a notice on or before
\n23.3.1976 [vide section 31(3) read with section 31(1)&(2) of
\nthe Act]; and the tenant – appellant would have had the right to
\npurchase the tenanted land under section 32 till 23.3.1977,
\nprovided he gave an intimation to the landlord and the Tribunal
\non or before 23.3.1977  under section 32F(1) read with section
\n32F(1A) of the Act. But as Anusuyabai had exercised her right
\nto take possession for personal cultivation, under section 31(1)
\nof the Act, during her life time and got possession of half of the
\nland, no right survived under section 31(3) to her or her
\nsuccessor-in-title to seek the remaining land for personal
\ncultivation having regard to the bar contained in section 31C. If
\nthe widow-landlord and her successor-in-title lost the right to
\nterminate the tenancy in regard to the remaining land (having
\nregard to the bar contained in section 31C) and therefore,
\nsection 31(3) ceased to apply, it follows that section 32F also
\ndid not apply. This is because, the right has to be exercised
\nunder section 32F(1), only where section 31(3) applied. If
\nsection 32F(1) did not apply, there was no need at all for the
\ntenant to issue any notice of intimation to the landlord or to the
\nsuccessor-in-title of the landlord proposing to purchase the land
\nunder section 32F(1A).\n<\/p>\n
13.\tUnfortunately, this aspect of the matter has been
\ncompletely overlooked by the High Court and the authorities
\nunder the Act. The authorities under the Act proceeded on the
\nassumption that even where a widow-landlord had terminated
\nthe tenancy and taken possession of the permissible extent of
\ntenanted land, section 31(3) would continue to apply and
\nconsequently, section 32F will also apply, and therefore, there
\nwas a need for the tenant to give a notice of intimation of
\npurchase under section 32F(1A), on the death of Anusuyabai.
\nThe High Court, however, did not examine this aspect at all as
\nit proceeded on the basis that the widow-landlord did not
\nterminate the tenancy and take possession of the permissible
\nextent of land.\n<\/p>\n
14.\tAs the Appellant’s case is governed by section 31(1),
\n31B(1) and 31C, rent for the land remaining with the tenant
\n(after the landlord has taken half the land under section 31(1) of
\nthe Act) had to be apportioned as provided in section 31D, and
\nthe liability to pay such rent would continue until price for the
\nland is determined under section 32G(5) on either the landlord
\nor the tenant approaching the Tribunal, and such price is paid
\nby the tenant.\n<\/p>\n
15.\tLearned counsel for the respondent relied on the
\ndecisions of this Court in Amrit Bhikaji Kale & Ors. V.
\nKashinath Janardhan Trade & Anr.<\/a> [1983 (3) SCC 437], Anna
\nBhau Magdum (d) by LRs. v. Babasaheb Anandrao Desai [1995
\n(5) SCC 243], Appa Narsappa Magdum (D) through LRs. v.
\nAkubai Ganapati Nimbalkar & Ors.<\/a> [1999 (4) SCC 443] and
\nBalchandra Anantrao Rakvi & Ors. V. Ramchandra Tukaram
\n(Dead)<\/a> by LRs. etc. [2001 (8) SCC 616], to contend that the
\ntenant has to issue a notice under section 32F within the period
\nprescribed and if he fails to do so, he loses the right to purchase
\nthe land and the landlord will become entitled to the same
\nabsolutely. These were all cases where the landlord under
\ndisability had not sought possession for personal cultivation
\nunder section 31(1) and where admittedly, section 31(3) and
\n32F applied and consequently, there was an obligation on the
\npart of the tenant to send an intimation under section 32F (1A).
\nNone of the cases related to a widow-landlord who had
\nterminated the tenancy during her lifetime and taken possession
\nof a portion of the tenanted land. Therefore, the said decisions
\nwill not apply.\n<\/p>\n
16.\tAs a consequence, we allow this appeal and set aside the
\norder of the High Court and those of the authorities below and
\nhold that the appellant-tenant continued to be the tenant of the
\nland which remained with him after delivering half of the land
\nto the landlord Anusuyabai in pursuance of the order dated
\n30.6.1960 made on her application under section 31(1) read
\nwith section 29 of the Act. The appellant shall be entitled to
\nrestoration, if he has been dispossessed by the respondent from
\nany part of his land in Gat No.332 in pursuance of the order of
\nSDO\/Revenue Tribunal\/High Court. Parties will also be entitled
\nto seek benefits\/reliefs referred to in para 14 above.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Sudam Ganpat Kutwal P.A. Holder Of … vs Shevantabai Tukaram Gulumkar … on 18 August, 2006 Author: Raveendran Bench: Arijit Pasayat, R. V. Raveendran CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 3128 of 2000 PETITIONER: Sudam Ganpat Kutwal P.A. Holder of Shankar Sitaram Bhosle RESPONDENT: Shevantabai Tukaram Gulumkar (dead) by LR Maruti Shankar Pachpute […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-174372","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSudam Ganpat Kutwal P.A. Holder Of ... vs Shevantabai Tukaram Gulumkar ... on 18 August, 2006 - 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\/sudam-ganpat-kutwal-p-a-holder-of-vs-shevantabai-tukaram-gulumkar-on-18-august-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sudam Ganpat Kutwal P.A. Holder Of ... vs Shevantabai Tukaram Gulumkar ... on 18 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudam-ganpat-kutwal-p-a-holder-of-vs-shevantabai-tukaram-gulumkar-on-18-august-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-08-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-14T16:12:29+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=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudam-ganpat-kutwal-p-a-holder-of-vs-shevantabai-tukaram-gulumkar-on-18-august-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudam-ganpat-kutwal-p-a-holder-of-vs-shevantabai-tukaram-gulumkar-on-18-august-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sudam Ganpat Kutwal P.A. Holder Of … vs Shevantabai Tukaram Gulumkar … on 18 August, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-08-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-14T16:12:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudam-ganpat-kutwal-p-a-holder-of-vs-shevantabai-tukaram-gulumkar-on-18-august-2006\"},\"wordCount\":4120,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudam-ganpat-kutwal-p-a-holder-of-vs-shevantabai-tukaram-gulumkar-on-18-august-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudam-ganpat-kutwal-p-a-holder-of-vs-shevantabai-tukaram-gulumkar-on-18-august-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudam-ganpat-kutwal-p-a-holder-of-vs-shevantabai-tukaram-gulumkar-on-18-august-2006\",\"name\":\"Sudam Ganpat Kutwal P.A. Holder Of ... vs Shevantabai Tukaram Gulumkar ... on 18 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-08-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-14T16:12:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudam-ganpat-kutwal-p-a-holder-of-vs-shevantabai-tukaram-gulumkar-on-18-august-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudam-ganpat-kutwal-p-a-holder-of-vs-shevantabai-tukaram-gulumkar-on-18-august-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudam-ganpat-kutwal-p-a-holder-of-vs-shevantabai-tukaram-gulumkar-on-18-august-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sudam Ganpat Kutwal P.A. Holder Of … vs Shevantabai Tukaram Gulumkar … on 18 August, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Sudam Ganpat Kutwal P.A. Holder Of ... vs Shevantabai Tukaram Gulumkar ... on 18 August, 2006 - 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\/sudam-ganpat-kutwal-p-a-holder-of-vs-shevantabai-tukaram-gulumkar-on-18-august-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sudam Ganpat Kutwal P.A. Holder Of ... vs Shevantabai Tukaram Gulumkar ... on 18 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudam-ganpat-kutwal-p-a-holder-of-vs-shevantabai-tukaram-gulumkar-on-18-august-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-08-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-14T16:12:29+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":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudam-ganpat-kutwal-p-a-holder-of-vs-shevantabai-tukaram-gulumkar-on-18-august-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudam-ganpat-kutwal-p-a-holder-of-vs-shevantabai-tukaram-gulumkar-on-18-august-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sudam Ganpat Kutwal P.A. Holder Of … vs Shevantabai Tukaram Gulumkar … on 18 August, 2006","datePublished":"2006-08-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-14T16:12:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudam-ganpat-kutwal-p-a-holder-of-vs-shevantabai-tukaram-gulumkar-on-18-august-2006"},"wordCount":4120,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudam-ganpat-kutwal-p-a-holder-of-vs-shevantabai-tukaram-gulumkar-on-18-august-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudam-ganpat-kutwal-p-a-holder-of-vs-shevantabai-tukaram-gulumkar-on-18-august-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudam-ganpat-kutwal-p-a-holder-of-vs-shevantabai-tukaram-gulumkar-on-18-august-2006","name":"Sudam Ganpat Kutwal P.A. Holder Of ... vs Shevantabai Tukaram Gulumkar ... on 18 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-08-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-14T16:12:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudam-ganpat-kutwal-p-a-holder-of-vs-shevantabai-tukaram-gulumkar-on-18-august-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudam-ganpat-kutwal-p-a-holder-of-vs-shevantabai-tukaram-gulumkar-on-18-august-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudam-ganpat-kutwal-p-a-holder-of-vs-shevantabai-tukaram-gulumkar-on-18-august-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sudam Ganpat Kutwal P.A. Holder Of … vs Shevantabai Tukaram Gulumkar … on 18 August, 2006"}]},{"@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\/174372","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=174372"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/174372\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=174372"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=174372"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=174372"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}