TRIBHOV AND AS HARIBHAI TAMBOLI versus GUJARAT REVENUE TRIBUNAL AND ORS.

TRIBHOV AND AS HARIBHAI TAMBOLI versus GUJARAT REVENUE TRIBUNAL AND ORS.

Sale of the land by Vasantrao, son of the landlord, during the father’s lifetime without authority under the Indian Lunacy Act was invalid and did not bind the appellant. The statutory right of the appellant as a deemed purchaser was not affected by subsequent notifications under Section 88(1)(b), as the second proviso was inapplicable due to the invalidity of the transfer.

Parties
Appellant: Tribhovan Haribhai Tamboli; Respondents: Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
10 May 1991
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Gujarat High Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Statutory Rights of Deemed Purchaser, Validity of Sale by Joint Family Member, Retrospective Effect of Statutory Exemption, Jurisdiction Under Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act
Land Law Tenancy Agricultural Law Statutory Rights of Deemed Purchaser Validity of Sale by Joint Family Member Retrospective Effect of Statutory Exemption Jurisdiction Under Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tribhovan Haribhai Tamboli

Appellant

Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Gujarat High Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the operation of the second proviso to Section 88(1)(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 retrospectively deprives the appellant of the statutory right of deemed purchaser.
  2. 2 Validity of sale of joint family property by son during father's lifetime under disability.

Ratio Decidendi

Sale of the land by Vasantrao, son of the landlord, during the father’s lifetime without authority under the Indian Lunacy Act was invalid and did not bind the appellant. The statutory right of the appellant as a deemed purchaser was not affected by subsequent notifications under Section 88(1)(b), as the second proviso was inapplicable due to the invalidity of the transfer.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Orders of the High Court, the Tribunal, and District Collector are set aside.
  • Order of Mamlatdar is confirmed.