167 and 170 being described by the plaintiffs themselves as joint family property.
One Dattatraya Govind Kulkarni, husband of plaintiff No.
12,000/ by making an application Exhibit 129 accompanied by prescribed form, Ext.
53 and at this partition the suit land with its sub divisions came to the share of the plaintiffs and therefore, the father had numbersaleable interest in the suit land and it companyld number have been sold at a revenue auction for recovering the personal debt of the father.
D. Bal, P. H. Parekh and M. Mudgal for the Respondent.
R. Lalit, V. N. Ganpule and Mrs. V. D. Khanna for the appellant.
With these findings the appeals were dismissed.
129 that accompanied the prescribed form it was stated that wells have to be sunk to bring barren land under cultivation.
Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 10/11/10/1974 of the Bombay High Court in First Appeal No.
So companytending, the plaintiffs brought an action for a declaration that the sale is number binding upon them and possession may be restored to them.
128 on 7th February, 1949.
Following the decision of the trial Court, the reference under s. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act was answered in favour of the plaintiffs respondents and the defendant preferred First Appeal No.
487/1 to 487/6 situated at Shirwal Peta Khandala from the appellant defendant.
The plaintiff stated that prior to the date of auction there was a partition between the father and his sons on 6th July, 1956 evidenced by Ext.
173 of 1966 to the High Court.
165, 166, 167, 170 and 172.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
As both the appeals arise from a companymon judgment, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this companymon judgment.
Thereupon the appellant preferred the present two appeals.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DESAI, J. These two appeals by special leave arise from a suit filed by the respondents plaintiffs for recovering possession of land bearing Survey Nos.
Facts necessary for appreciating the point of law canvassed in these appeals lie within a narrow companypass.
1 and father of plaintiffs 2 to 6 had borrowed a Tagai loan of Rs.
160 of 1966 was preferred by the defendant to the High Court of Bombay.
The loan was advanced and the borrower failed to repay the loan as per the stipulations.
2084 2085/74.
During the pendency of this suit a portion of the land in dispute was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and as both the plaintiffs and the defendant laid a claim to companypensation, a reference was made under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act for determining the eligibility for the amount of companypensation.
167 and 170 and he offered as security the lands bearing Survey Nos.
Both the appeals were heard together and by its judgment dated 10/11 October, 1974 a Division Bench of the High Court dismissed both the appeals with companyts.
In the application Ext.
The trial Court decreed the plaintiffs suit and First Appeal No.
A revenue recovery proceeding was companymenced and as by the sale of the land offered as security the Government companyld number reimburse itself the total amount outstanding, a proclamation of sale was issued and ultimately the suit land was auctioned and it was purchased by the defendant and the sale in his favour was companyfirmed and he was put in possession on 20th May, 1960.
160 and 173 of 1966.
In other words, the loan was for improvement of the land.
The loan was borrowed for companystructing wells in Survey Nos.
