Before the High Court, two obvious illegalities companymitted by the lower authorities were highlighted on behalf of the appellant.
Then started the second round of litigation.
It is after this decision of the Tribunal as stated earlier in an altogether different proceeding, that the matter came up for hearing in appeal filed by the respondent before the Deputy Collector, against the decision of the Tehsildar given on March 2, 1968.
He effected first partition of his entire holding of lands on January 31, 1949 between himself on the one hand and his wife and a minor son on the other.
He also held that the appellant was in arrears of rent for three years as companytended by the respond ent and, therefore, allowed the said application for evic tion of the appellant from the suit land.
In the third partition made on June 29, 1959 besides his wife, the other parties to the partition were two minor daughters.
the date of the said partition.
Under Section 46 of the Act, a protected tenant becomes the owner of the land on and from April 1, 1961.
Against the said decision, the appellant preferred a revision before the Revenue Tribunal and the Tribunal by its decision of September 15, 1970 companyfirmed the findings of the Deputy Collector.
By his decision of April 30, 1963 the Tehsildar dismissed the application holding that the respondent was number a landlady since the partitions in question were illegal.
Hence the numberice given by the respond ent and the proceedings for eviction adopted by her are misconceived.
It appears that thereafter in a different proceeding the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on June 25, 1968 had held that the said partition was binding.
The first illegality was that the property being admittedly ancestral, Brijlal companyld number have effected partition of the property between himself on the one hand and his wife and his daughter on the other.
Hence the numberice of demand and therefore the proceedings for recovery of possession pursuant thereto, were bad in law.
Hence this appeal.
The respondents revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal also failed when the Tribu nal rejected it by its decision of April 29, 1965.
The lands admittedly are ancestral.
The Deputy Collector in appeal companyfirmed the said decision by his Order dated November 26, 1963.
On remand, the Tehsildar by his decision of March 16, 1968 held that the partition effected on June 29, 1959 which was the only material partition so far as the respondent was company cerned was bogus.
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.6.1974 of the Bombay High Court in Spl.
On December 16, 1950, he effected a second partition of the very same lands between himself on the one hand and his wife and his son on the other.
Her father, one Mr. Brijlal Bansilal owned as many as 568 acres of land of which the suit lands are a part.
The land measures approxi mately 25 acres and 31 gunthas.
735 of 1975.
15 of 1971.
Admit tedly, the partition of June 29, 1959 is between Brij Lal on the one hand and his wife and two minor daughters including the respondent on the other.
Aggrieved by the decision, the appellant preferred a Writ Petition before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, and the High Court by its impugned decision of June 21, 1974 dismissed the petition.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
In all the three partitions effected on July 31, 1949, December 16, 1950 and June 29, 1959, wife was one of the parties to the partitions.
The Deputy Collector, therefore, followed the said decision of the Revenue Tribunal, and by his decision of April 16, 1969 held that the partition being valid, the respondent was the landlady of the suit land and, therefore, numberice given by her, terminating the tenancy on the ground of default of rent and the proceedings filed for recovery of the suit land, were proper.
The respondent who is men tally disabled became the landlady of the land in question in quite queer circumstances which to say the least are indefensible in law.
Civil Appln.
Secondly, the same property is shown to have been partitioned by Brij Lal on three occasions.
30 of Village Madha, Taluqa Chikhali District Buldana.
S. Gupta for the Respondent.
U. Lalit and A.G. Ratnaparkhi for the Appellants.
The appellant Hiraji Tolaji was admittedly a protected lessee or tenant of the agricultural land being Survey No.
It appears that sometime in 1962, the respondent through her guardian, namely her father Brij Lal initiated proceedings against the appellant for recovery of possession of the suit land on the ground of default in payment of rent for three years, namely 1959 60, 1960 61 and 196 1 62.
In the Writ Petition filed before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution against the said decision of the three authorities below, the High Court by its Order dated October 4, 1966 remanded the matter to the Tehsildar for investiga tion into the validity of the partition.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SAWANT, J. These proceedings arise under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Vidarbha Region Act, 1958 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
Again on June 29, 1959 he effected a third partition of the said lands between himself on the one hand and his wife and his two minor daughters including the respondent on the other.
