SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1977 Supreme(SC) 44

A. N. RAY, M. H. BEG, P. S. KAILASAM
Sita Ram Bhau Patil – Appellant
Versus
Ramchandra Nago Patil – Respondent


Advocates:
A.G.Ratnaparkhi, B.N.LOKUR, R.B.DATAR, S.V.Gupta, SANJIV KUMAR

Judgment

RAY, C.J.I. :- This appeal by special leave is from the judgment dated 13 February, 1968 of the High Court of Bombay.

2. The appellant was owner of land covered by Survey Nos 201/2, 194/13. 200/29 and 194/15. The appellants wife sold this land to respondent No. 1 on 14 June 1946.

3. On 12 April 1962 the appellant made an application under S. 70 (b) of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Act) for a declaration that he was a tenant of two of the four plots of land namely, Survey Nos. 194/15 and 200/29. This dispute between the appellant and the respondent in regard to alleged tenancy claim for these two survey numbers went up to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The Tribunal by order dated 19 March, 1954 rejected the claim of the appellant to tenancy in respect of the land covered by Survey Nos. 200/29 ad 194/15.

4. Thereafter the respondent filed an application on 24 January 1963 under Section 70 (b) of the Bombay Act for a declaration that the appellant was not tenant of the remaining two Survey Nos. 201/2 and 194/13. The respondent alleged that he never leased the land to the appellant. The respondent further said that he came to





























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top