Ravikiran Shukre | Manikchand Pahade Law College, Aurangabad | 6th January 2020
Case: Digambar & Anr. V. Kachru Dead Thr. Lrs. & Ors. (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4382 of 2014)
Facts of the Case:
- Kisan Punde, predecessor in title of respondents namely, Vithal, Tukaram, Kachru and Madan (erstwhile respondents no. 1 to 4) was the owner of the agricultural land. The suit land was owned by the Kisan Punde/father of the respondents no. 1 to 4 herein and the was mortgaged to one Vasudeorao for Rs. 200/- in 1941 and which was further mortgaged to Chandu Narsingh Pardesh/father of appellants in year of 1942.
- Possession of the suit land was provided to Vasudeorao who had given possession to the Chandu Narsing Paresh/father of appellants. Appellants are the mortgagees of the suit land admeasuring 29 Acres and 4 Gunthas situated at Dhondalgaon at Aurangabad and are in possession since 1942 vide mortgage deed dated 25/02/1942. Chandu/father of appellants has alienated the 5 acres of the suit land to the respondents Bakru S/O Ranganath and Sheelabai W/O Uttamrao Deshpande.
- Sons of Kisan namely, Vithal, Tukaram, Kachru and Madan; aggrieved by this alienation filed a petition before the Additional Collector, Aurangabad for the termination of the Mortgage and Restoration of possession under Section 10 of the Prevention of Agricultural Lands Alienation Act, 1939 read with Section 103 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. The aforesaid application was allowed ex-parte on 27/07/1984.
- The above mentioned order was challenged before the Additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner in appeal remanded the case to the Additional Collector (on 12/03/1986) with a direction to decide the matter by providing the equal opportunity of being heard.
- The Additional Collector, on 14/05/1988 come to a conclusion that; respondents no. 1 to 4 – sons of Kisan are entitled to have a possession of suit land as per the Section 10 of 1939 Act and allowed the application filed by the sons of Kisan.
- Aggrieved by this order, appellants filed the writ petition no. 1389 of 1989 in High Court of Bombay bench at Aurangabad and the same was dismissed by the impugned order dated 13/01/2005holding that proceedings initiated by sons of Kisan namely, Vithal, Tukaram, Kachru and Madan was maintainable. Appellants aggrieved by this order filed an appeal in Supreme Court.
Judgment given by High Court:
Aggrieved by the order given by the Additional Commissioner dated 14/05/1988, appellants filed the writ petition no. 1389 of 1989 in High Court of Bombay bench at Aurangabad and the same was dismissed by the impugned order dated 13/01/2005 holding that proceedings initiated by sons of Kisan namely, Vithal, Tukaram, Kachru and Madan was maintainable and also held that Section 5 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 excludes the mortgagee in possession to be termed as “deemed tenant”.
Judgment given by Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court has allowed the intervention applications filed by various parties, having interest in the suit property. Apart from the parties in appeal, all the concerned parties viz. Barku Raghunath Raut, Janabai Barku Raut, Shriram Kashinath Wakle, Annapurna Shriram Wakle, Babasaheb Shriram Wakle, Kushinath Eknath Kale, Rajendra Eknath Kale, Vimalbai Babasaheb Kale, Yogesh Babasaheb Kale, Devidas Madan Punde, Kailas Madan Punde, Bhimabai Madan Punde, Indubai Surybhan Tathe, Sindhubai Dadasaheb Pawar, Dnyaneshwar Sarjaram Pawar and Gayabai Machindra Pawar have filed their affidavit sworn in by them individually stating that they have amicably settled the matter and that they have entered in memo of Compromise. The appeal is disposed of in terms of Memo of Compromise. The registry is directed to draft a decree in terms of Memo of Compromise effected between the parties. The terms of Compromise/memo of allotment of shares to the concerned parties and map/sketch filed thereon showing the division of the properties amongst parties (Annexure 5) shall form a part of decree also.
Parties are directed to co-operate with each other in effecting mutation by moving appropriate applications before concerned authority. The concerned authority is directed to take note of compromise between parties and effect the mutation accordingly.