{"id":42764,"date":"2008-11-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tatya-vithoba-dethe-vs-madhavdas-k-maysurkar-on-18-november-2008"},"modified":"2016-09-18T08:35:48","modified_gmt":"2016-09-18T03:05:48","slug":"tatya-vithoba-dethe-vs-madhavdas-k-maysurkar-on-18-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tatya-vithoba-dethe-vs-madhavdas-k-maysurkar-on-18-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"Tatya Vithoba Dethe vs Madhavdas K. Maysurkar on 18 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Tatya Vithoba Dethe vs Madhavdas K. Maysurkar on 18 November, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: Nishita Mhatre<\/div>\n
bsb\n\n                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n                       WRIT PETITION NO. 3787 OF 1991\n\n\n\n\n                                                                       \n      Tatya Vithoba Dethe,\n\n\n\n\n                                              \n      (since deceased through his heirs)\n      Dnyanoba Tatya Dethe & ors.                      ... Petitioners\n\n                v\/s\n\n\n\n\n                                             \n      Madhavdas K. Maysurkar\n      (since deceased through his heir)\n      Ramchandra Krishnaji Sawant\n      (since deceased through his heir)\n      Smt.Shantabai Ramchandra Sawant                  ... Respondent\n\n\n\n\n                                     \n      Mr.S.G.Karandikar i\/by Mr.G.S.Godbole for petitioner.\n                        \n      Mrs.S.S.Deshpande for the respondent.\n\n                                   CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                                   DATED: 18TH NOVEMBER, 2008<\/p>\n
      ORAL JUDGMENT:\n<\/p>\n
      1.    The petitioners have challenged the order passed by<\/p>\n
      the   Tenancy    Awal   Karkun, Pandharpur on          30.9.1982          in<\/p>\n
      Tenancy   Case    No.84\/B\/Takali, the order passed               by     the<\/p>\n
      Sub-Divisional     Officer    (in short, S.D.O.),           Pandharpur<\/p>\n
      Division, dated 15.9.1990 in Tenancy Appeal No.1 of 1983<\/p>\n
      and the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal<\/p>\n
      (in short, M.R.T.) on 21.6.1991.\n<\/p>\n
      2.    The brief facts giving rise to the present petition<\/p>\n
      are as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:04:20 :::<\/span>
\n                                               2<\/span><\/p>\n
    .      Tatya Vithoba Dethe was the tenant of lands                            bearing<\/p>\n
    survey        Nos.194, 196 and 207 situated in Village                         Takli,<\/p>\n
    Tal.      Pandharpur           in     District    Solapur.         Tatya’s           son<\/p>\n
    Dnyanoba        and     his brother Santaram purchased                   the       suit<\/p>\n
    land     by     a registered sale deed dated 18.4.1956                         for     a<\/p>\n
    consideration           of Rs.7000\/- from the owners of the                        land<\/p>\n
    i.e.      Madhavdas Krishnaji Maysurkar, the predecessor in<\/p>\n
    title     of the present respondent.               In 1985, the               Tenancy<\/p>\n
    Mahalkari commenced proceedings under Section 84B of the<\/p>\n
    Bombay        Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act                   (hereinafter<\/p>\n
    referred        to<\/p>\n
                           as “the Act”) on the ground that the                        sale<\/p>\n
    was     invalid        under        Section 64 of the Act as             it        stood<\/p>\n
    prior     to     the Amending Act of 1956.               According            to     the<\/p>\n
    Tenancy        Mahalkari,       the sale in favour of Dnyanoba                      and<\/p>\n
    Santaram        was     invalid       as it was not in favour                 of     the<\/p>\n
    tenant        of the lands.          Accordingly, an order was                 passed<\/p>\n
    on     14.12.1958 by the Tenancy Mahalkari in Tenancy                              Case<\/p>\n
    No.84\/B\/5,        Takli, declaring the sale invalid.                      Since no<\/p>\n
    notices        were     issued to either the landlord or                      to     the<\/p>\n
    petitioners,          the     respondent’s        predecessor            in     title<\/p>\n
    approached            the      Tenancy     Awal     Karkun         and         sought<\/p>\n
    restoration           of possession of the property on the ground<\/p>\n
    that     he     had     inherited the same.          By     an     order           dated<\/p>\n
    15.3.1973,        the       Awal     Karkun,      Pandharpur,          passed         an<\/p>\n
    ex-parte order directing that the possession of the land<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:04:20 :::<\/span>
\n                                                   3<\/span><\/p>\n
    be     restored        to        him.        The     petitioners        received          an<\/p>\n
    intimation directing them to hand over possession of the<\/p>\n
    land     to     the respondent’s predecessor.                       It was at         this<\/p>\n
    juncture        that the petitioners became aware of the order<\/p>\n
    dated 14.12.1958 passed by the Tenancy Mahalkari as also<\/p>\n
    the order passed by the Tenancy Awal Karkun.\n<\/p>\n
    3.       An     appeal           was,     therefore,          preferred        by         the<\/p>\n
    petitioners            to     the       S.D.O.         challenging          both        the<\/p>\n
    aforesaid        orders.           The S.D.O.         allowed the           appeal        by<\/p>\n
    observing        that Tatya was the tenant of the land on                               the<\/p>\n
    date<\/p>\n
             of the sale and hence the proper order should have<\/p>\n
    been     to restore the land to Tatya and not the landlords<\/p>\n
    assuming        the        sale was invalid.           The S.D.O.           also      held<\/p>\n
    that     the     petitioners were in actual possession of                               the<\/p>\n
    suit     lands alongwith Tatya.                    The proceedings were               then<\/p>\n
    remanded        to     the        Trial      Court by        the     S.D.O.         for     a<\/p>\n
    decision on merits.                Revision applications were filed by<\/p>\n
    both,     the        petitioners          and the       landlords         before        the<\/p>\n
    Maharashtra           Revenue       Tribunal.         The     petitioners            filed<\/p>\n
    their     revision application                    contending that instead                 of<\/p>\n
    remanding            the     matter,         the      S.D.O.         ought     to     have<\/p>\n
    regularised           the    sale       on         payment     of     penalty.          The<\/p>\n
    revision        filed       by the landlords was allowed while                          the<\/p>\n
    revision         of        the     petitioners          was        dismissed,         thus<\/p>\n
    resulting        in        restoration of the order of                  the      Tenancy<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:04:20 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 4<\/span><\/p>\n
    Mahalkari       and     Tenancy Awal Karkun.                 The order          of     the<\/p>\n
    S.D.O.         remanding the matter to the Trial Court was set<\/p>\n
    aside.\n<\/p>\n
    4.      Aggrieved       by      the    decision         of    the      M.R.T.          the<\/p>\n
    petitioners       preferred           Special     Civil         Application            No.<\/p>\n
    1616     of     1975        before this Court.           By      an    order         dated<\/p>\n
    5.11.1979,       this        Court     set      aside      the      order       of     the<\/p>\n
    Tribunal and restored the order of the S.D.O.                                remanding<\/p>\n
    the      matter        to     the     Trial      Court.          The       proceedings<\/p>\n
    commenced       afresh after remand.              The Tenancy Awal Karkun<\/p>\n
    by<\/p>\n
           his judgment and order dated 30.12.1982 declared the<\/p>\n
    sale     of     18.4.1956 in favour of Dnyanoba and                          Santaram,<\/p>\n
    invalid and directed them to hand over the possession of<\/p>\n
    the lands to the respondents herein.\n<\/p>\n
    5.      An     appeal was preferred by the petitioners                            before<\/p>\n
    the    S.D.O.,        Pandharpur.        This appeal was dismissed                       by<\/p>\n
    him on 15.9.1990.\n<\/p>\n
    6.       The      petitioners          then       preferred            a      revision<\/p>\n
    application       before        the     M.R.T.,      Pune.            The     revision<\/p>\n
    application       was        heard and decided on               21.6.1991.             The<\/p>\n
    Tribunal dismissed the revision and confirmed the orders<\/p>\n
    passed        by the authorities below.             The petitioners                  have<\/p>\n
    therefore         preferred           the        present          writ        petition<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:04:20 :::<\/span>
\n                                            5<\/span><\/p>\n
    challenging        all    the     aforesaid orders         passed         against<\/p>\n
    them.\n<\/p>\n
    7.      Mr.Karandikar,          learned advocate appearing for                  the<\/p>\n
    petitioners        submits      that   all the      authorities               below,<\/p>\n
    including       the Tribunal, have not correctly                  appreciated<\/p>\n
    the law which governs the sale of lands executed by deed<\/p>\n
    of 18.4.1956.        He submits that the sale of the lands was<\/p>\n
    between        the landlords on the one hand and Dnyanoba                       and<\/p>\n
    Santaram on the other, who were part of the joint family<\/p>\n
    of     Tatya.      Tatya was admittedly a tenant of the                        lands<\/p>\n
    and S.D.O.\n<\/p>\n
                      by his order in Tenancy Appeal No.64 of 1973<\/p>\n
    had     held     that     Dnyanoba and Santaram          were        in       actual<\/p>\n
    possession        of the suit lands with Tatya.                According          to<\/p>\n
    the     learned advocate, the petitioners were                    cultivating<\/p>\n
    the     land     personally       with Tatya, as part           of        a    joint<\/p>\n
    family and therefore were tenants.                The sale between the<\/p>\n
    landlords       and tenants was valid and in any event                         under<\/p>\n
    Section        84B of the Act if the sale was invalid it could<\/p>\n
    have     been     regularised by paying a penalty                 of      Rs.1\/-.\n<\/p>\n
    The     learned     advocate submits that as a result                     of     the<\/p>\n
    impugned        orders,    the lands have been restored                   to     the<\/p>\n
    landlords       and they have also benefited by the amount of<\/p>\n
    Rs.7,000\/-        which was paid to them at the time when                        the<\/p>\n
    sale     took place on 18.4.1956.          It is further               submitted<\/p>\n
    that the lands cannot be restored to the landlords under<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:04:20 :::<\/span>
\n                                            6<\/span><\/p>\n
    any circumstances as Section 84B of the Act contemplates<\/p>\n
    that     the lands must be restored to the person from whom<\/p>\n
    they     were     acquired.     The learned advocate            points        out<\/p>\n
    that     in the present case they were acquired from                       Tatya<\/p>\n
    who     was     in    possession      of the land as       a    tenant        and<\/p>\n
    therefore,        assuming     the    sale was invalid,           the      lands<\/p>\n
    ought     to     have      been restored to    Tatya.          The      learned<\/p>\n
    advocate        further submits that Dnyanoba being the son of<\/p>\n
    Tatya was certainly a part of the joint family of Tatya.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n    He     urges     therefore that Dnyanoba's rights in the                    land\n\n    cannot        be extinguished in the manner that they have                      by\n\n    the     impugned\n                          \n                          orders.        Besides, the    learned         advocate\n\n<\/pre>\n
    submits that all the authorities below have accepted the<\/p>\n
    fact     that Tatya never ceased to be in possession of the<\/p>\n
    land     as a tenant.        He submits that the crucial question<\/p>\n
    is whether on the date of the sale on 18.4.1956 Dnyanoba<\/p>\n
    could     have       purchased the land together           with      Santaram<\/p>\n
    from the landlords.\n<\/p>\n
    8.      Per contra, Mrs.Deshpande, learned advocate for the<\/p>\n
    respondent        submits     that no interference is called                  for<\/p>\n
    from     this     Court     with the orders     of     the      authorities<\/p>\n
    below.         She submits that the writ jurisdiction of                    this<\/p>\n
    Court     should      not    be exercised when       there        are      three<\/p>\n
    concurrent        orders in favour of the respondent which                      do<\/p>\n
    not     contain      any    infirmities.      The    learned         advocate<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:04:20 :::<\/span>
\n                                           7<\/span><\/p>\n
    points       out     that    Tatya has not     challenged          the      order<\/p>\n
    granting          possession    to the landlords at any              point       of<\/p>\n
    time     when he was alive.          She submits that there was                  no<\/p>\n
    evidence on record as held by the authorities below that<\/p>\n
    Dnyanoba          and Santaram were part of the joint family                     of<\/p>\n
    Tatya.        In     fact, all the authorities below               have      held<\/p>\n
    that     Tatya       was     the sole tenant    and,      therefore,           the<\/p>\n
    purchasers          i.e.     Dnyanoba and Santaram were              outsiders<\/p>\n
    and    not        tenants    who   had purchased       the     lands.          She<\/p>\n
    submits       that there was no material on record in support<\/p>\n
    of the petitioners’ contention that they were tenants by<\/p>\n
    virtue       of<\/p>\n
                        being part of a joint family of Tatya.                     She<\/p>\n
    therefore          submits     that there is no need          to     interfere<\/p>\n
    with the orders passed.\n<\/p>\n
    9.     Before        considering the submissions of the                 learned<\/p>\n
    counsel       for     the    parties, it would be         appropriate            to<\/p>\n
    consider the provisions under which the Tenancy Mahalkar<\/p>\n
    had initiated proceedings against the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
    10.    Section 84B was inserted in the Act by the Amending<\/p>\n
    Act    on     1.4.1956.        It was later amended in 1958 when                   a<\/p>\n
    proviso       was inserted to Section 84B.            Both the          section<\/p>\n
    and    its        proviso have a retrospective effect.                  Section<\/p>\n
    84B reads thus :-\n<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:04:20 :::<\/span>
\n                                        8<\/span><\/p>\n
               “Section 84B:- (1) Where in respect of a
\n               transfer or acquisition of any land made on or
\n               after the 15th day of June, 1955 and before the
\n               commencement of the Amending Act, 1955, the
\n               Mamlatdar, suo motu or on the application of<\/p>\n
               any person interested in such land, has reason
\n               to believe that such transfer or acquisition –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (a) was in contravention of section 63 or 64 as
\n               it stood before the      commencement of    the
\n               Amending Act, 1955, or<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
               (b) is inconsistent with any of the provisions<\/p>\n
               of this Act as amended by the Amending Act,
\n               1955, the Mamlatdar shall issue a notice in the
\n               prescribed   form   to   the transferor,    the
\n               transferee or the person acquiring such land,
\n               as the case may be, to show cause as to why the<\/p>\n
               transfer or acquisition should not be declared
\n               to be invalid and shall hold an inquiry and
\n               decide whether the transfer or acquisition is<\/p>\n
               or is not invalid:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               Provided that where the transfer or acquisition
\n               was in favour of the tenant in possession of<\/p>\n
               the land, such transfer or acquisition shall
\n               not be declared to be invalid if the tenant
\n               pays to the State Government a penalty of Re.1.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    Section    63     of     the Act as it stood prior to              the     1955<\/p>\n
    Amending    Act        bars transfers of agricultural              lands       to<\/p>\n
    non-agriculturists.           Section    64        permits         sale        of<\/p>\n
    agriclutural lands to particular persons in the order of<\/p>\n
    priority    stipulated       under sub-section (2).                Clause        A<\/p>\n
    which     deals with priority in case of agricultural                      land<\/p>\n
    other than a dwelling house reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
               “A. In the case of agricutural land other than
\n               a dwelling house, the site thereof and land
\n               appurtenant to such house when such site or
\n               dwelling house or land is not used or is not
\n               necessary to carry on agricultural operations
\n               in the adjoining lands –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:04:20 :::<\/span>
\n                                          9<\/span><\/p>\n
                 (i) the        tenant   in actual possession             of     the
\n                 land,<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                 (ii)   the   person   or   persons   personally<\/p>\n
                 cultivating any land adjacent to the land to be
\n                 sold,<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                 (iii)     a co-operative farming society,<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                 (iv)     any other agriculturist,<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                 (v) any other person who has obtained from the<\/p>\n
                 Collector a certificate that he intends to take
\n                 profession of agriculturist.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    In     order to appreciate the aforesaid provisions of                       the<\/p>\n
    Act,    it    will     also be necessary      to    consider            certain<\/p>\n
    definitions<\/p>\n
    determination<\/p>\n
                        under<\/p>\n
                          of
\n                                 the Act which are relevant<\/p>\n
                                the   issues   involved       in
\n                                                                        for<\/p>\n
                                                                     this
\n                                                                                 the<\/p>\n
                                                                                writ<\/p>\n
    petition:\n<\/p>\n
                 \"Section    2(18):-\n                             2(18):      \"Tenant\"    means   an\n<\/pre>\n
                 agriculturist who holds land on lease and
\n                 includes a person who is deemed to be a tenant<\/p>\n
                 under the provisions of this Act.     The word
\n                 “landlord” shall be construed accordingly.”\n<\/p>\n
                 “Section 2(11):- “Person” includes an undivided
\n                 Hindu family.”\n<\/p>\n
                 “Section    2(7A):- “joint    family” means                       an<\/p>\n
                 undivided Hindu family, and in the case                           of
\n                 other persons a group or unit the members                         of
\n                 which    are by custom     joint in estate                        or
\n                 residence.”\n<\/p>\n
                 “Section 2(6):- “To cultivate personally” means<\/p>\n
                 to cultivate on one’s own account –\n<\/p>\n
                 (i)     by one's own labour, or\n\n                 (ii) by the          labour of any     member         of      one's\n                 family, or\n\n\n\n\n                                                  ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:04:20 :::<\/span>\n                                                10<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
                  (iii) by servants on wages payable in cash or
\n                  kind but not in crop share or by hired labour
\n                  under   one’s personal   supervision or    the
\n                  personal supervision of any member of one’s
\n                  family.\n<\/p>\n
    There     can        be     no   dispute     that     Tatya,         Dnyanoba        and<\/p>\n
    Santaram were part of a joint family, Dnyanoba being the<\/p>\n
    son     and     Santaram,         the    brother      of     Tatya.          Assuming<\/p>\n
    Santaram was a part of the joint family of Tatya, in any<\/p>\n
    event     Dnyanoba would be a member of the joint family of<\/p>\n
    Tatya     as     defined         under      Section        2(7A).        There       are<\/p>\n
    findings        of        the authorities below which indicate                     that<\/p>\n
    Tatya and Dnyanoba were cultivating the land personally.\n<\/p>\n
    The     findings of the S.D.O.              indicate that Tatya was                    in<\/p>\n
    actual        possession         of the lands as the original                   tenant<\/p>\n
    and that Dnyanoba and Santaram were in actual possession<\/p>\n
    of the land together with Tatya.\n<\/p>\n
    11.       The        learned      counsel       for    the      respondent           has<\/p>\n
    submitted        that when there are three concurrent findings<\/p>\n
    of     fact recorded by the Courts below, this Court should<\/p>\n
    not interfere in its writ jurisdiction with the impugned<\/p>\n
    orders.         There        is no doubt that the High Court in                      its<\/p>\n
    writ     jurisdiction, will not normally interfere with the<\/p>\n
    concurrent        findings        of     fact recorded          by     the      Courts<\/p>\n
    below.         However, if these findings are perverse and                             if<\/p>\n
    there     is     an error apparent on the face of the                         record,<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:04:20 :::<\/span>
\n                                                   11<\/span><\/p>\n
    this     Court           has     a    duty    to      interfere       in     its         writ<\/p>\n
    jurisdiction              and    set right the injustice caused                       to     a<\/p>\n
    party.         The        sale was executed on 18.4.1956 when                          Tatya<\/p>\n
    was     the        tenant in possession and was                   cultivating              the<\/p>\n
    land     personally.                 There    can     be no      dispute          that      on<\/p>\n
    18.4.1956            Tatya’s          family,       including         Dnyanoba             and<\/p>\n
    Santaram,           was staying together jointly as an Un-divided<\/p>\n
    Hindu        Family,        with Tatya as the eldest member                       of       the<\/p>\n
    family.            The     finding of the S.D.O.                that Dnyanoba              and<\/p>\n
    Santaram           were        in possession of the land together                      with<\/p>\n
    Tatya and that they were cultivating the land personally<\/p>\n
    has<\/p>\n
            not been set aside by any subsequent authority                                     nor<\/p>\n
    has     the        finding        been challenged          by     the      respondent.\n<\/p>\n
    Thus,        the     possession of Tatya alongwith                      Dnyanoba           and<\/p>\n
    Santaram was never disputed nor is there any material on<\/p>\n
    record        to     indicate          that     the    tenancy        of     Tatya         was<\/p>\n
    terminated           at any point of time or that the                        possession<\/p>\n
    of     the     land        was       taken away from          him.         Thus,       under<\/p>\n
    Section        64(2)(a)(i), the agricultural land is permitted<\/p>\n
    to be sold to a tenant in actual possession of the land.\n<\/p>\n
    Dnyanoba and Santaram who were in possession of the land<\/p>\n
    as     members of the Un-divided Hindu Family of Tatya were<\/p>\n
    also     tenants           under       Section 2(18).           Being        in     actual<\/p>\n
    possession of the land as tenants, they were entitled to<\/p>\n
    purchase           the     land       under     Section         64    of     the         Act.\n<\/p>\n
    Therefore,           in        my opinion, the sale of the land to                         the<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:04:20 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    12<\/span><\/p>\n
    petitioners              cannot        be     faulted      as         it     is    not        in<\/p>\n
    contravention with either Section 63 or 64 as they stood<\/p>\n
    before the Amending Act of 1955.\n<\/p>\n
    12.      Even       assuming           the     sale     of      the        land    to       the<\/p>\n
    petitioners           was    in        contravention            of     either        of     the<\/p>\n
    provisions          under Section 63 or 64 or inconsistent                                with<\/p>\n
    the provisions of the Act as amended by the Amending Act<\/p>\n
    of     1955, the sale could have been regularised under the<\/p>\n
    proviso        to     Section          84B.     In case of the               transfer         or<\/p>\n
    acquisition           in favour of the tenant in possession,                                the<\/p>\n
    proviso stipulates that the transfer of land need not be<\/p>\n
    declared invalid if the tenant pays the State Government<\/p>\n
    a     penalty       of Rs.1\/-.              Once there is a finding                  of     the<\/p>\n
    S.D.O.         that Tatya was cultivating the land personally,<\/p>\n
    it     includes          cultivation          of    land        by     the      labour        of<\/p>\n
    Dnyanoba        and       Santaram as part of an                     Un-divided           Hindu<\/p>\n
    Family,        it     obviously means that they were                          tenants         in<\/p>\n
    possession          of      the land and had a right to acquire                             the<\/p>\n
    ownership of the land under the Act.\n<\/p>\n
    13.     In any event, the land could not have been restored<\/p>\n
    to the landlord as Tatya was always in possession of the<\/p>\n
    land     as     a tenant even after the execution of the                                   sale<\/p>\n
    deed.     He was cultivating the land personally and was in<\/p>\n
    actual        possession          of        the property on            1.4.1957.            His<\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:04:20 :::<\/span>
\n                                           13<\/span><\/p>\n
    tenancy       was never terminated at any point of time.                       On<\/p>\n
    his    death,         the tenancy is deemed to have continued                  in<\/p>\n
    favour      of      his heirs.     Therefore, looking at           the     case<\/p>\n
    from any angle, the respondents would not be entitled to<\/p>\n
    restoration           of the land.   The petitioners being part of<\/p>\n
    the    Un-divided         Hindu   Family,   would     be     entitled          to<\/p>\n
    continue with the possession of the land after the death<\/p>\n
    of Tatya in 1975.           Although it has been argued on behalf<\/p>\n
    of    the respondent that Tatya was the tenant and not the<\/p>\n
    petitioners,          Section 2(18) of the Act defines a                tenant<\/p>\n
    as    one     who      holds land on lease and      also         includes        a<\/p>\n
    person<\/p>\n
                who is deemed to be a tenant.           Under Section              40<\/span><\/p>\n
    of    the Act, in any event, the tenancy is deemed to have<\/p>\n
    continued        in     favour    of the petitioners        as     heirs       of<\/p>\n
    Tatya.\n<\/p>\n
    14.      In      my opinion, the findings recorded by               all      the<\/p>\n
    authorities below with respect to the restoration of the<\/p>\n
    land to the respondent must be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
    15.      Writ petition allowed.\n<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:04:20 :::<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Tatya Vithoba Dethe vs Madhavdas K. Maysurkar on 18 November, 2008 Bench: Nishita Mhatre bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3787 OF 1991 Tatya Vithoba Dethe, (since deceased through his heirs) Dnyanoba Tatya Dethe & ors. … Petitioners v\/s Madhavdas K. Maysurkar (since […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-42764","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nTatya Vithoba Dethe vs Madhavdas K. Maysurkar on 18 November, 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\/tatya-vithoba-dethe-vs-madhavdas-k-maysurkar-on-18-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Tatya Vithoba Dethe vs Madhavdas K. Maysurkar on 18 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tatya-vithoba-dethe-vs-madhavdas-k-maysurkar-on-18-november-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=\"2008-11-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-18T03:05:48+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tatya-vithoba-dethe-vs-madhavdas-k-maysurkar-on-18-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tatya-vithoba-dethe-vs-madhavdas-k-maysurkar-on-18-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Tatya Vithoba Dethe vs Madhavdas K. Maysurkar on 18 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-18T03:05:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tatya-vithoba-dethe-vs-madhavdas-k-maysurkar-on-18-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2691,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tatya-vithoba-dethe-vs-madhavdas-k-maysurkar-on-18-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tatya-vithoba-dethe-vs-madhavdas-k-maysurkar-on-18-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tatya-vithoba-dethe-vs-madhavdas-k-maysurkar-on-18-november-2008\",\"name\":\"Tatya Vithoba Dethe vs Madhavdas K. Maysurkar on 18 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-18T03:05:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tatya-vithoba-dethe-vs-madhavdas-k-maysurkar-on-18-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tatya-vithoba-dethe-vs-madhavdas-k-maysurkar-on-18-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tatya-vithoba-dethe-vs-madhavdas-k-maysurkar-on-18-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Tatya Vithoba Dethe vs Madhavdas K. Maysurkar on 18 November, 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":"Tatya Vithoba Dethe vs Madhavdas K. Maysurkar on 18 November, 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\/tatya-vithoba-dethe-vs-madhavdas-k-maysurkar-on-18-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Tatya Vithoba Dethe vs Madhavdas K. Maysurkar on 18 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tatya-vithoba-dethe-vs-madhavdas-k-maysurkar-on-18-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-18T03:05:48+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tatya-vithoba-dethe-vs-madhavdas-k-maysurkar-on-18-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tatya-vithoba-dethe-vs-madhavdas-k-maysurkar-on-18-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Tatya Vithoba Dethe vs Madhavdas K. Maysurkar on 18 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-18T03:05:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tatya-vithoba-dethe-vs-madhavdas-k-maysurkar-on-18-november-2008"},"wordCount":2691,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tatya-vithoba-dethe-vs-madhavdas-k-maysurkar-on-18-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tatya-vithoba-dethe-vs-madhavdas-k-maysurkar-on-18-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tatya-vithoba-dethe-vs-madhavdas-k-maysurkar-on-18-november-2008","name":"Tatya Vithoba Dethe vs Madhavdas K. Maysurkar on 18 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-18T03:05:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tatya-vithoba-dethe-vs-madhavdas-k-maysurkar-on-18-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tatya-vithoba-dethe-vs-madhavdas-k-maysurkar-on-18-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tatya-vithoba-dethe-vs-madhavdas-k-maysurkar-on-18-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Tatya Vithoba Dethe vs Madhavdas K. Maysurkar on 18 November, 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\/42764","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=42764"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42764\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=42764"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=42764"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=42764"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}