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

1950 Supreme(Bom) 100

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Gajendragadkar P.B. , J.
Appellants: Laxman Gopal
Vs.
Respondent: Vishnu Raghoba
Civil Revn. Appln. No. 890 of 1949 (with C.R.A. Nos. 21 and 67 of 1950)
Decided On: 04.10.1950
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: G.N. Vaidya, Adv. in No. 890/49, M.A. Rane, Adv. in No. 21/50 and K.B. Sukthankar, Adv. in No. 67/50
For Respondents/Defendant: V.S. Desai and D.R. Manerikar, Advs.

Mulgenis are tenants within the meaning of Section 2A of the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1939 and are entitled to the protection of the Act.

Headnote:

TENANCY - MULGENI TENURE - BOMBAY TENANCY ACT, 1939 - SECTION 2A - MULGENIS ARE TENANTS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2A - THEY ARE ENTITLED TO THE PROTECTION OF THE ACT.

Fact of the Case:

Three suits were filed against mulgenis (permanent tenants) by their respective landlords claiming rent on the basis of an agreement. The mulgenis resisted the claim on the ground that the rent under the agreement could not be recovered having regard to the provisions of Section 15(2), Bombay Tenancy Act. The trial court held that the mulgenis were not tenants within the meaning of Section 2A of the Act and decreed the landlords' claims.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the mulgenis were tenants within the meaning of Section 2A of the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1939 and were entitled to the protection of the Act.

Issues: Whether the mulgenis were tenants within the meaning of Section 2A of the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1939.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the following principles in reaching its decision: * The historical development of the mulgeni tenure in Kanara showed that the mulgenis were not proprietors, but were permanent tenants. * The definition of 'tenant' in Section 2A of the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1939 was broad enough to include the mulgenis. * The mulgenis needed the protection of the Act, as evidenced by the fact that the rent they had agreed to pay was excessive under Section 12 of the Act.

Final Decision: The court set aside the decrees of the trial court and remanded two of the cases for disposal in accordance with law. In the third case, the court dismissed the landlord's suit.

Judgment

Gajendragadkar, J.

1. These three revnl. applns. raise an interesting question as to whether the mulgenis are tenants within the meaning of Bombay Act XXIX [29] of 1939. The petnrs. in all the three cases before me are mulgenis. Three suits had been filed against them by their respective landlords claiming rent from them on the basis of an agreement between them. The mul-genis resisted the claim on the ground that the rent under the agreement could not be recovered having regard to the provisions of Section 15 (2), Bombay Tenancy Act. That naturally raised the question as to whether the mulgenis were tenants within the meaning of Section 2A of the said Act. The learned Judge who tried the three suits came to the conclusion that they are not tenants within the meaning of the said section as such are not entitled to the protection of Section 15. He has, therefore, decreed the pltfs. claims. In their present revn. applns. before me the mulgenis have contended that the learned Judge was wrong in holding that they were not tenants in coming to that conclusion he has not properly appreciated the real nature incidents of the mulgeni tenure. This tenure prevails on an extensive scale in the Dist. of Kanara so the question raised in the present proceedings is of considerable importance so far as that district is concerned.

2. This question has been considered by this Ct. on several occasions in the past the case for the petnrs. is that their contention is fully borne out by the decisions of this Ct. Before referring to these decisions, however, it may be convenient to discass the literal meanings of some of the relevant terms as they are found in Wilsons Glossary. "Mulagar" or "Mulgar" means owner or original proprietor; he is sometimes described as Mulavargdar. "Gaini" or "Geni" means rent paid to the landlord or proprietor. "Mulgeni" means permanent tenants. Thia word is used in contradistinction to temporary tenants who are called "Chali-Genis."

3. The question as to the nature of the mulgeni tenure was considered incidentally in the well-known case of Vyakunta Bapuji v. Government of Bombay, 12 Bom. H.C. R. App.l. This case is some-times described as the Kanara case. In 1875 a question arose before the Dist. Ct. in Karwar as to whether Govt. could enhance the land revenue payable in respect of land held by the mulavargdar. This Ct. thought thab the question was of such general importance that it directed the case to be transferred from the Dist. Ct. of Karwar to itself tried the issues arising between the pltf. the Govt. of Bombay. Westropp C. J. West J., heard the suit the judgment was delivered by the learned C. J. in which he exhaustively considered the rights of the mulavargdars in respect of the lands held by them the rights of the Govt. to enhance the land revenue in respect of such lands. In dealing with the rights of the mulavargdars it was inevitable that the learned Judges should have incidentally considered the rights of the mulgenis also. A distinction was drawn between gaini-varg mulgeni. "The gaini-varg is held directly from the State," observed Westropp C. J., "whereas the mul-gaini tenure is said to be a permanent tenancy under the rayut or mulavargdar at a fixed invariable rent." The ques-tion as to the mulgenis rights, however, directly arose for decision eight years later in Vyankatraya v. Shivrambhat, 7 Bom. 256. In this case the pltf. who had obtained a decree against a mulgeni, wanted to attach the mulgenis rights in the land in execution of his decree. The mulavargdar or the proprietor objected to the attachment sale of the said rights on the ground that there was a clause in the lease passed in favour of the mulgeni which expressly prohibited the mulgeni from alienating his rights by mtg., sale or lease which further stipulated that he was "not to let it be sold, or attached sold in satisfaction of judgment debts;" that if he did, the landlord might take away the land g











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 Back to top