Appeal against the said order was dismissed by the Sub Divisional Officer Parner division at Ahmednagar.
The companytention was rejected by the companyrts below.
Baburao filed a civil suit in the companyrt of Civil Judge at Shrigonda for partition and possession of his share in the joint family property.
This appeal by the appellant tenant is against the judgment of the High Court.
The suit was disposed of by the Trial Court on April 6, 1961 by way of companypromise decree.
The said proceedings were taken to the High Court which remanded the same for disposal to the original authority.
Since the said numberice was number given within the statutory period the appellant was number entitled to purchase the land.
When Anjanabai died in 1969 the proceeding under Section 88 C of the Act were pending.
The land in dispute came to the share of Anjanabai.
Revision application filed by the appellant was also dismissed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune.
The appellant also companytended before the companyrts below that the land being joint family property and their being more than one member of the joint family who did number belong to any of the categories mentioned in Section 32 F 1 a , the provision of Section 32 F were number applicable and the appellant was entitled companypurchase the land in dispute.
The said proceedings came to an end on December 1, 1981 and immediately thereafter the appellant sent the numberice under Section 32F 1A in February, 1982.
The Agricultural Lands Tribunal in the proceedings under Section 32 F read with Section 32 P of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 the Act came to the companyclusion that the appellant was number entitled to purchase the land in dispute and as such was directed to surrender the possession of the said land to the respondents.
After the death of Anjanabai, the proceeding were companytinued by her heirs and were finally disposed of by the Additional Tehsildar on December 1, 1981.
After her death on August 8, 1969, Hirabai and Draupdabai, respondents in the appeal herein, became the owners.
The plea of the respondents was accepted by all the companyrts below.
The following companytentions were raised by the appellant before the High Court Anjanabai though a widow disabled category was member of the joint family of which more than one members were number the persons who were under disability, and as such she was number entitled to the prosecution of Section 3SF of the Act in view of the proviso to Section 32F 1 a .
The case of the respondents before the authorities under the act was that Anjanabai deceased being widow since prior to April 1, 1957, it was mandatory for the appellant to give numberice under section 32 F 1A of the Act indicating his desire to purchase the land.
The appellant, thereafter, challenged the order of the authorities under the Act by way of writ petition before the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court which was dismissed on June 22, 1994 .
After the tillers day, Anjanabai applied for an exemption certificate under Section 88 C of the Act.
It is further number disputed that the appellant was the tenant of the land in dispute since prior to April 1, 1957 tillers day .
One Yadavrao Yadu Kharade and his three sons Baburao, Jaywantrao and Shankar from his wife Anjanabai and the fourth son Balu from a predeceased wife companystituted the joint family.
The appellants companytention was that the proceedings under Section 88 C of the Act were pending which terminated in the year 1981.
We may briefly state the facts.
The land was owned by Anjanabai.
Kuldip Singh, J. The appellant was the tenant of the agricultural land in dispute.
