Back
1996 Supreme(SC) 422
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M. M. Punchhi, Suhas .C. Sen
DATTATRAYA GANESH KULKARNI, APPELLANT
Versus
APPA TUKARAM MUDE AND OTHERS, RESPONDENTS.
Civil Appeal No. 3974 of 1984,
decided on February 20, 1996.
Benefit under Section 88-C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, is unavailable if the joint Hindu family holding exceeds the economic limit, and a pending partition suit does not establish that the joint family had already split.
Headnote:(A) Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - Section 88-C - Benefit of section - Land belonging to joint Hindu family - Holding exceeding economic holding - Income from joint family property clubbed with personal income exceeding Rs 1500 per month - Benefit of section not available.
(B) Joint Hindu Family - Partition - Pending suit for partition - Does not imply that the joint family stood already split for the purpose of interpreting local legislation - Established interpretations of local legislation by the High Court are binding.
Facts of the case:
The appellant sought the benefit of Section 88-C of the relevant Act. It was found that the land belonged to a joint Hindu family and the holding was above the economic holding defined in the Act. The appellant's income from joint family property, when combined with personal income, exceeded Rs 1500 per month. The appellant contended that a pending suit for partition indicated the joint family had already split and the suit was merely to fructify that split.
Findings of Court:
The court found that on the appointed day, the land had not been partitioned and continued to be joint Hindu property. Consequently, the appellant could not avail of the benefit of Section 88-C as the holding was above the economic limit.
Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Section 88-C of the Act despite the land being joint Hindu family property and the existence of a pending partition suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that if land is joint Hindu family property and exceeds the economic holding, the benefit of Section 88-C is unavailable. Furthermore, a pending suit for partition does not prove that the joint family had already split, and established interpretations of local legislation by the High Court are to be followed.
Result: Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
land law
-
tenancy law
-
agricultural land
- bombay tenancy and agricultural lands act
-
agricultural land
-
tenancy law
-
family law
-
joint hindu family
- partition
-
joint hindu family
ORDER
We have heard learned counsel for both sides in this appeal. On the facts of it, the appellant cannot avail of the benefit of Section 88-C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. If the land belonged to the joint Hindu family, as has been found by the High Court, the holding was far above the economic holding as defined in the Act. In that state, the appellant having income from joint Hindu family property, and clubbing of it with his personal income in going above Rs 1500 per month is a factor which could have no relevance. If it is treated to have been allotted to him during partition and then tenancy created of a size of an economic holding, then his other income would assume relevance for the purpose of computation. The finding recorded by the High Court is that on the appointed day, the land had not been partitioned and continued to be joint Hindu property. The argument that a suit was pending on that day, reflective of the fact that the joint Hindu family stood already split and the aim of the suit was merely to fructify that split is also of no avail to the appellant in view of two decisions of the Bombay High Court in Jainabai Haji Ramjan Shaikh v. Bakaji Bhau Mandalik ((1961) 63 Bom LR 657) and Anna Balgonda Patil v. Vasant Raghunath Kulkarni (AIR 1963 Bom 36). Those judgments are in the nature of state decisis insofar as the interpretation of the local legislation on the subject is concerned. These having remained in the field for decades would not warrant us now to be giving a different interpretation as sought by the learned counsel for the appellant. The appeal therefore fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs.
