The suit lands formed part of the lands allotted to the second appellant.
It is number necessary for us to go into these companytentions in this appeal.
The same view companymended itself to the High Court.
The suit lands were in possession of the respondents as tenants.
Under Section 32 1 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act , the suit lands were deemed to have been purchased by the tenants on April 1, 1957.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
On a further appeal to the tribunal, the Order of the District Deputy Collector was reversed and the decision of the Mamlatdar restored.
The Mamlatdar came to the companyclusion that the partition alleged did number companye within the scope of Section 32F 1 a of the Act as it was only a partial partition in view of the fact that the members had number divided the house that they had at Baroda as well as their lands in Kadu in Poona District.
At the time of the partition the second appellant was a minor.
It is said that the father and the sons divided their lands in Baroda on March 12, 1958 and l/5th share of those lands was given to the second appellant.
The appellate authority opined that a partial partition also companyes within the scope of Section 32F 1 a and hence it set aside the Order of the Mamlatdar and remanded the case back to him for determining whether the second appellant had been given a proper share in the family properties which question the Mamlatdar did number go into earlier in view of his companyclusion that a partial partition does number companye within the scope of Section 32F 1 a In the further appeal the tribunal agreeing with the Mamlatdar opined that in Order to have the benefit of Section 32F 1 a , the entire family properties must have been partitioned.
The suit lands formed part of the lands owned by that family.
It is said that those lands were owned by a Hindu joint family companysisting of the 1st appellant and his four sons.
Thereafter the appellants moved the High Court of Gujarat under Article 226 of the Constitution but the same was dismissed.
S. Hegde, J. The appellants are father and son, the second appellant being a son of the 1st appellant.
They own some lands in Baroda in Gujarat State.
