JUDGMENT - J.G. CHITRE, J.:---This appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

(1) "Whether having held that the appellant-plaintiff had become purchaser under section 32 of the Tenancy Act, the courts below ought to have held that proceedings under section 32-G and 32-P of the Bombay Tenancy Act were void ab initio when the findings recorded clearly indicate that Dadamiya the father of the plaintiff did not hold land above the ceiling limits?"

(2) "Whether the courts below wrongly relied upon section 56 of the Indian Contract Act to hold that was an impossibility of performance of contract as the land was in excess of the ceiling limit, the specific performance of which was asked for. It is not open to the respondents to deny the specific performance of valid agreement and if on such performance the plaintiff held land in excess of ceiling, it is for the Government to take excess land and the respondents will have no authority in that behalf."

While admitting the appeal for final hearing on 10-10-1988, the Court had pointed out that substantial questions of law are embodied in above mentioned ground Nos. 7 and 8 as they have been quoted.

2. Mr. Rege, Couns

Click Here to Read the rest of this document