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

1969 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 9

BOMBAY HIGH COURT
XYZ, J
Anant Dattatraya Mali v. Chintaman Govind Patil


Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Advocate A, Advocate B
For the Respondents:Advocate C

Table of Content
1. common legal question on the interpretation of tenancy laws and partitions. (Para 1 , 3 , 5 , 6)
2. defining the legal requirements for valid partition and tenant purchase rights. (Para 2 , 4 , 8 , 10 , 12)
3. final ruling establishing the dismissal of petitions due to invalid partition. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)

1. These three petitions under Art.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 S.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 Laxmibal and 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 Lax


















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