Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
In this case of DIGAMBER & ANR. VERSUS KACHRU DEAD THR. LRS. & ORS, an appeal was filed by the appellants in the Supreme Court challenging the judgement passed by the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad Bench in Writ Petition whereby the High Court held that the predecessors in title of the appellants namely Vasudeo and Chandu cannot take advantage of Section 5 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. In this case Kisan Punde, predecessor in title of the respondents namely Vithal, Tukaram, Kachru and Madan (erstwhile respondents No.1 to 4) was the owner of the agricultural land. The suit land was owned by Kisan Punde/father of respondents No.1 to 4 herein and the land was mortgaged to one Vasudeorao for Rs.200/- in 1941 and which was further mortgaged to Chandu Narsingh Pardeshi/father of appellants in the year 1942. Possession of the suit land was given to Vasudeo rao who gave possession to the father of the appellants. Appellants are thus the mortgagees of the suit land admeasuring 29 acres and 4 gunthas situated at Dhondalgaon, Aurangabad and they are in possession since 1942 vide mortgage deed dated 25.02.1942. Chandu/father of appellants has alienated 5 acres of land to respondents Bakru s/o Rangnath and Sheelabai w/o Uttamrao Deshpande. Aggrieved by such alienation, sons of Kisan namely Vithal, Tukaram, Kachru and Madan filed petition before the Additional Collector, Aurangabad for termination of the mortgage and restoration of possession under Section 10 of the Prevention of Agricultural Lands Alienation Act, 1939 read with Section 103 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. The said application was allowed exparte on 27.07.1984. The said order was challenged before the Additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner in appeal remanded the case to the Additional Collector on 12.03.1986 with a direction to decide the matter afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties. The Additional Collector after consideration of evidence placed before him, by order dated 14.05.1988, recorded a finding that respondents No.1 to 4 – sons of Kisan are entitled to have possession of the suit property as per Section 10 of the 1939 Act and allowed the application filed by sons of Kisan. Revision filed by the appellants before Additional Commissioner was dismissed vide order dated 30.03.1989 confirming the order of the Additional Collector. Further when the case was filed in the High Court, the high court gave the aforementioned judgement. The judgement of the High Court was challenged in the Supreme Court, while the case was going on the parties decided to compromise, and the Supreme Court held “ The appeal is disposed of in terms of Memo of Compromise. The terms of Compromise (Annexure-A3) and the maps/sketches (Annexure- A5) filed thereon showing the division of the properties amongst the parties, shall form part of this judgment. The Registry is directed to draft a decree in terms of the Memo of Compromise effected between the parties. The terms of Compromise/Memo of allotment of shares to the concerned parties (Annexure-A3) and also map/sketch filed thereon showing the division of the properties amongst the parties (Annexure-5) shall form part of the decree also. Parties are directed to co-operate with each other in effecting mutation by moving appropriate applications before the concerned authority. The concerned authority is directed to take note of the compromise between the parties and effect mutation accordingly. It is further directed that the parties concerned are at liberty to file the decree before the concerned Sub-Registrar for registration of the decree who shall register the same on compliance with the Rules and in accordance with law. The appeal is accordingly, disposed of in above terms.”
86540
103860
630
114
59824