RANGO LAXMAN PINGLE Vs. KUMUDINI CHANDRAKANT PETHKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants in the two Letters Patent Appeals are the son and grandsons of one Laxman Pingle. On or about 2nd March, 1922 a Special Civil Suit No. 341 of 1922 was filed by Khanderao Mehendale against the sons of Laxman Pingle for recovery of a sum of about Rs. 18,150/- together with interest thereon on the basis of a pro-note. The disputes between the parties were referred to arbitration. Ultimately an award was given in this arbitration pursuant to which a decree in terms of the award was passed on 21-3-1922. Under the terms of the decree, the defendants, that is to say, the sons of Laxman Pingle were ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to the plaintiff Mehendale and in satisfaction of the amount, Pingles were directed to deliver possession of an immovable property viz. Survey No. 15 from Donaje village in Haveli Taluka, Poona District to the plaintiff decree-holder. It was further provided that the plaintiff decree-holder would enjoy the property till the end of 1964 as his own property and he would give accounts of the mesne profits to the defendants. If he satisfied them that his dues were not fully recovered and that they still owed some amount to him, he was at liberty to retain that property for a further period of 8 years. In any case by the end of May 1973 irrespective of the question whether the plaintiff's debt had been satisfied or not, the property was to be regarded as free from debt and the plaintiff Mehendale had to hand over possession of the suit property and the defendants were directed to take possession of the suit property at the end of May 1973 in their own right as owners-After May 1973 the plaintiff Mehendale had no right of any kind over the property in question. Pursuant to this decree, the plaintiff in that suit obtained possession of the suit property under the decree. In 1956 and 1966 Pingales filed Darkhasts asking for possession of the suit property. But the Darkhasts were rejected on the ground that Pingale were not entitled to recover possession of the suit property from Mehendale under the decree before 1973. Proceedings in respect of these previous Darkhasts are not on the record before us. On 4-6-1973 the appellants took out the present Darkhast for possession of the said property in execution of the decree which was passed on 21-3-1922.

(2.) This application for execution was contested originally by one Padmavati, Khanderao Mehendale who was the original plaintiff had died leaving a son Balwant who had also died on 20-2-1958, Padmavati was the widow of Balwant. Padmavati resisted the application for execution on the ground that she had been the tenant of the suit property from her husband Balwant and that after the coming into operation of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 proceedings were taken under Section 32G of the Act and she was granted a certificate under Section 32M of the Act recognising her as a deemed purchaser of the suit property. She, therefore, claimed that under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act she was a deemed purchaser by virtue of the certificate granted to her under Section 32M and the decree for possession could not be executed against her. During the pendency of these execution proceedings Padmavati has also died and the proceedings are now being defended by Kumudini (Respondent No. 1) who is the daughter of Padmavati.

(3.) The question that arises for our consideration is whether the appellants are entitled to execute the decree of 21-3-1922 under which they were given a right to obtain possession of the said property at the end of May 1973 in view of the fact that Padmavati was recognised as a deemed purchaser under Section 32M of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.