UMABAI TRIMBAKRAO TALUKDAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIELD Survey No. 402, area 30 acres 1 guntha of Jarud was owned by Kashibai wife of Balwantrao Kalamkar. She was a widow having lost her husband in about the year 1951 and herself died on 2-6-1964. The respondent No. 3 Pralhad has been a tenant of this field since the time of Kashibai. After the death of Kashibai, the field was inherited by her three daughters Umabai, Radhabai and Shakuntala, who are the petitioners in this case. Out of them, the petitioner No. 1 Umabai is a widow since about the year 1921. On the death of Kashibai, the petitioners succeeded to the property left by Kashibai in equal shares and under Section 19 of the Hindu Succession Act, inherited the property as tenants-in-common and not as joint tenants. Each of them took the property per capita and not per stirpes, each of them having one-third share in the field in dispute.

(2.) SUO motu proceedings were started by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Morshi after the death of Kashi bai under Section 48 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Tenancy Act) to determine the extent of the Land which stands transferred to and vest in the tenant and the purchase price thereof in accordance with Section 47 of the Tenancy Act, The petitioner No. 1 Umabai raised a contention that her share amounting to one-third in the aforesaid field could not vest in the tenant as she is a widow. The Agricultural Lands Tribunal allowed the respondent No. 3 to purchase two-thirds share in the aforesaid field representing the shares of the petitioners 2 and 3. It was held by it that the one-third share of the petitioner No. 1 did not stand transferred to the tenant-respondent No. 3.

(3.) THE tenant Pralhad preferred an appeal against this decision. The Sub-Divisional Officer as an appellate Court held that the tenant was entitled to purchase the whole of the suit field Including the share of the petitioner no. 1 and remanded the case to the Agricultural Lands Tribunal for fresh decision and for deciding the purchase price of the whole field. This order was challenged by the petitioners before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The Revenue Tribunal upheld the view of the Sub-Divisional Officer, holding that the ownership of the whole field vested in the tenant under the provisions of Section 46 of the Tenancy Act. The Revenue Tribunal took the view that after the death of Kashibai, the petitioners became the owners and also landlords of the field in suit and since these rights had devolved on them by operation of law, they are joint landlords of the field. It was then held that since only one of those joint landlords is a widow, but the other two are not, the fact of the petitioner No. 1 being a widow will not prevent the vesting of ownership in the tenant under the first proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 41 of the Tenancy Act. The latter two orders are challenged by this petition.