DIGAMBAR ADHAR PATIL versus DEVRAM GIRDHAR PATIL (DIED) AND ANR.

DIGAMBAR ADHAR PATIL versus DEVRAM GIRDHAR PATIL (DIED) AND ANR.

The High Court correctly held that land allotted to respondent's brother should be excluded and land held by minor son even if included leaves respondent within the ceiling limit; respondent entitled to purchase land under sections 32B and 32G of the Act.

Parties
Appellant: Digambar Aohar Patil; Respondents: Devrarm Girdhar Patil (deceased) and Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
21 February 1995
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment by Supreme Court After High Court Remand
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Ceiling Limits, Land Partition, Joint Family Property, Tenant's Right to Purchase, Record of Rights as Evidence
Agricultural Land Law Tenancy Law Ceiling Limits Land Partition Joint Family Property Tenant's Right to Purchase Record of Rights as Evidence

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Digambar Aohar Patil

Appellant

Devrarm Girdhar Patil (deceased) and Anr.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment by Supreme Court After High Court Remand

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether land held by minor son and brother should be included in respondent's holding for ceiling limit determination under the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948
  2. 2 Entitlement of tenant to purchase land under sections 32B and 32G of the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court correctly held that land allotted to respondent's brother should be excluded and land held by minor son even if included leaves respondent within the ceiling limit; respondent entitled to purchase land under sections 32B and 32G of the Act.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The High Court's remand order directing the Mamlatdar to conduct an enquiry under section 32G and fix the price for land purchase by respondent is upheld.