# RAGHUNATH v. POPAT LAL AND ORS

- **Citation:** [1996] 2 S.C.R. 660
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1996-02-14
- **Bench:** K. Ramaswamy Ands. Saghir Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/raghunath-v-popat-lal-and-ors-13754
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Bombay Tenancy and Aglicultural Lands Act, 1948 :
Tenants purchasing the equity redemption of lands for consideraC tion-One of the tenants selling the undivided interest in the land to the
mother of the appellant-Mamlatdar and appellate auth01ity recorded a
finding that the lesser 1ight of tenancy stood merged with the tenants' larger
1ight as owners and they no longer remained tenants and the purchaser alone
was held to be owner of the undivided share in the land-High Court reversing
the order-~n appeal, held, the respondents 2 and 3 and the appeliant
D became co-owners in the property and entitled to p01tition after redemption
of 11101tgage in equal moiety and enjoyment thereof-Respondents to deposit
the sum as directed in the prelimin01y decree-on such deposit being made,
llial cowt to draw up the final decree within four weeks and to deliver
possession of his share of land to the appellant within six weeks thereafter.
E
F

## Text

A
RAGHUNATH
v.
POPAT LAL AND ORS.
FEBRUARY 14, 1996
B
[K. RAMASWAMY ANDS. SAGHIR AHMED, JJ.]
Bombay Tenancy and Aglicultural Lands Act, 1948 :
Tenants purchasing the equity redemption of lands for consideraC tion-One of the tenants selling the undivided interest in the land to the
mother of the appellant-Mamlatdar and appellate auth01ity recorded a
finding that the lesser 1ight of tenancy stood merged with the tenants' larger
1ight as owners and they no longer remained tenants and the purchaser alone
was held to be owner of the undivided share in the land-High Court reversing
the order-~n appeal, held, the respondents 2 and 3 and the appeliant
D became co-owners in the property and entitled to p01tition after redemption
of 11101tgage in equal moiety and enjoyment thereof-Respondents to deposit
the sum as directed in the prelimin01y decree-on such deposit being made,
llial cowt to draw up the final decree within four weeks and to deliver
possession of his share of land to the appellant within six weeks thereafter.
E
F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1990 (N)
of 1979.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.3.76 of the Bombay High
Court in A. No. 584 of 1974.
Mrs .. T.S. Wad, Manoj Wad and Mrs. S. Usha Reddy for the Appellants.
G.B. Sathe and AS. Bhasme for the Respondents.
G
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
The only question is whether the respondents can claim right as
tenants to the possession of the demised lands under the Bombay Tenancy
and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act')? The admitted facts
are that the land originally belonged to one Lilachand Bhandari. He
H hypothecated the lands on July 27, 1942 in favour of one Hirachand, the
660
f J
•
...
. -r
-...
RAGHUNATH v. POPAT LAL
661
father of respondent Nos. 1 and 4 (defendants 1 & 4) under the possessory A
mortgage. In 1947- 48 Hirachand leased those lands to respondent Nos. 2
and 3 (defendants 2 & 3). While remaining to be tenants, respondent No.2
had purchased the equity of redemption of the suit lands for a sum of Rs.
12,000 on December 27, 1949. The second respondent in turn sold half of
the undivided interest in the land to one Housabai, mother of the appellant
on January 19, 1950. From these facts the question arose : whether the
second and the third respondents remained to be tenants in the land after
the Act had come into force? When the matter was referred to Mamlatdar
for decision, a finding was recorded by him and also by the appellate
authority that the property having been purchased by way of equity of
redemption, the lesser right of tenancy stood merged with their larger right
as owners and that, therefore, the respondents no longer remained to be
B
c
the tenants; consequently the appellant alone was held to be the owner of
undivided share in the land and the respondent could not claim tenancy
rights under the Act. But, unfortunately, the High Court in Second Appeal
reversed the said finding and held in the impugned order that the responD
dents remained to be tenants and that, therefore, the Act got attracted.
The appellant thereby had to surrender his rights to the tenants. Thus this
appeal by special leave.
It would be seen that though the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had come
into possession as tenants in the year 1947-48 from the mortgagee E
Hirachand, after the second respondent's purchase of the equity of
redemption on December 27, 1949, they became absolute owner of the suit
property. Thereby, their lesser tenancy rights which they had under the
mortgagee Hirachand, stood merged with their larger interest as owner of
the lands. Thereby on and from December 27, 1949 they ceased to be the
p
tenants. Having sold the undivided half land to the mother of the appellant
who has since died and the appellant havifig succeeding the land by
intestate succession by registered conveyance dated January 19, 1950 they
became co-owners in the property. Thereby, they are ~ntitled to partition
of the same after redemption of the mortgage in equal moiety and enjoyment thereof. The suit of the appellant, therefore, is clearly maintainable. G
It is accordingly to be decreed.
We are informed that pursuant to the preliminary decree granted by
the trial Court, the appellant had deposited a sum of Rs. 4,000 as directed
in the preliminary decree but it would appear that the respondents have H
662
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1996] 2 S.C.R.
A not deposited their share. Three months time from today is granted to the
respondents to deposit the same. On deposit being so made, the trial Court
would draw up the final decree within four weeks thereafter and pass
appropriate orders according to law and deliver possession of the land that
fell to the share of the appellant, within six weeks thereafter.
B
The appeal accordingly allowed. No costs.
G.N.
Appeal allowed.