The main legal point established in the judgment is that the partition of joint family properties must satisfy the requirements of the proviso to clause (a) of sub-section(1) of Section 32-F, including the separation of the disabled person's share by metes and bounds, to postpone the tenant's right to become the statutory purchaser of the lands.

JUDGMENT - Tarkund,

1. These three petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution raise a common question of law relating to the interpretation of the proviso to clause (a) of sub-section(1) of Section 32-F of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.

2. To appreciate the question involved it would be sufficient to notice the acts in Special Civil Application No. 1676 of 1964. One Dattatraya was the owner of several agricultural lands in a village in the Jalgaon District. It appears that Dattatraya also owned several houses and had a money-lending business. He died in 1962 leaving behind a widow Laxmibai two sons Anant and Balwant. After the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereafter referred to as the Bombay Tenancy Act) was extensively amended by Bombay Act No. 13 of 1956 with effect from 1st August 1956, a partition was effected between the widow Laxmibai and the two sons Anant and Balwant by a registered document dated 20th November 1956. By that partition several agricultural lands, which were in the possession of the 1st respondent as a tenant, were allotted to the share of Laxmibai. On the assumption that the 1st respondent had become the owner of these lands on the Tillers Day, a proceeding for the determination of their purchase price of these lands was commenced under Section 32 G of the Bombay Tenancy Act . Notice of this proceeding was given to Anant and not to Laxmibai. Anant appeared before the Agricutlural Lands Tribunal and contended that the lands had fallen to the share of Laxmibai in a family partition, that since Laxmibai was a widow and the partition was covered by the proviso to Clause (a) of Seciton 32F (1) of the Bombay Tenancy Act the 1st respondent had not become the purchaser of the lands and that the proceeding for the determination of the purchase price of the lands under Section 32G was, therefore, incompetent. In reply to these contentions the 1st respondent claimed that the alleged partition between Laxmibai and her sons was bogus andt hat he had become the purchaser of the lands on the Tillers Day. After recording evidence on these rival contentions, the Agricultutral Lands Tribunal came to the conclusion that the alleged partition was not genuine and directed that the proceeding under Section 32G should continue. The Agricultural Lands Tribunal observed that there was no divison of the house property between Laxmibai and her sons and that the ancestral money-lending business had admittedly been kept joint betwen them

3. In an appeal field by Anant from this decision the Deputy Collector came to the conclusion that there had been genuine partition between Laxmibai and her sons in respect of agricultural lands, that the lands allotted to the share of Laxmibai were not more than her one third share in the entire joint family property, and that although other properties, such as houses, ornaments and the ancestral money-lending business were not partitioned, the partial partition in respect of agricultural lands was good in law was law and was protected by the proviso to clause (a) of Section 32 F(1) of the Bombay Tenancy Act. On these findings the Deputy Collector allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Agricultural Lands Tribunal.

4. From the order of Deputy Collector the 1st respondent approached the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in revision. This revision applications which questions relating to the interpretation of the proviso to clause (a) of S. 32F (1) of the Bombay Tenancy Act were involved, was placed before a Full Bench of three Members of the Revenue Tribunal. The Full bench gave its findings on the question of interpretation of the said proviso which were raised in the course of arguments in all the application. Thereafter a Division a Bench of the Revenue Tribunal dealt separately with each of the revision application filed by the 1st respondent the Division bench of the Revenue Tribunal set aside the order of Deputy Collector and restored that of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document