KRISHNABAI ANAJI GHULE AND OTHERS versus NIVRUTTI RAMCHANDRA RAYKAR AND ANOTHER

KRISHNABAI ANAJI GHULE AND OTHERS versus NIVRUTTI RAMCHANDRA RAYKAR AND ANOTHER

Bona fide requirement for personal cultivation under s. 33-B must be established by the certificated landlord, but collateral attack on the partition's bona fides is not permitted once determined in s. 88-C proceedings; the procedural rigour for notice and evidence is subject to prior conclusive findings, and the High Court correctly restored the possession order based on these findings.

Parties
Appellants: Krishnabai Anaij Ghule and Others; Respondents: Nivrutti Ramchandra Raykar and Another
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
05 September 1983
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Bombay High Court Judgment in Special Civil Application No. 107 of 1977
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, Certificate of Exemption, Personal Cultivation Requirement, Partition Validity, Excluded Tenants

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Krishnabai Anaij Ghule and Others

Appellants

Nivrutti Ramchandra Raykar and Another

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Bombay High Court Judgment in Special Civil Application No. 107 of 1977

  1. 1 Whether a certificated landlord can obtain possession of exempted land from excluded tenants under s. 33-B
  2. 2 Whether the bona fides of a partition can be reconsidered in proceedings under s. 33-B after having been concluded in s. 88-C proceedings
  3. 3 What constitutes bona fide requirement for personal cultivation under s. 33-B

Ratio Decidendi

Bona fide requirement for personal cultivation under s. 33-B must be established by the certificated landlord, but collateral attack on the partition's bona fides is not permitted once determined in s. 88-C proceedings; the procedural rigour for notice and evidence is subject to prior conclusive findings, and the High Court correctly restored the possession order based on these findings.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal fails and is dismissed; no order as to costs.