ABDUL DADAMIYA SHAIKH Vs. JAGANNATH MURLIDHAR RATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

(2.) MR. Rege, Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there was no substance in the challenge put by the appellant in respect of challenge put to the validity of the proceedings initiated under provisions of sections 32-G and 32-P of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act; 1948 (hereinafter referred to as Act for convenience) which has been covered by the ground mentioned at Sr. No. 7 of the appeal memo. Therefore, according to him, when the original defendant Jagannath Murlidhar Rathi has become the owner of the suit land by virtue of the proceedings initiated in view of provisions of sections 32-G and 32-P of the Act, he had the authority to sell the land in question to the appellant by virtue of the agreement in question. But the courts below dismissed the suit by holding that the original plaintiff-the appellant, was not entitled to have the decree for specific performance by virtue of the said agreement which took place between them on 6-6-1962.

(3.) IN view of the submissions advanced as quoted above by Counsel for the appellant Shri Rege, the entire record will have to be seen in context with the judgments and orders passed by the two courts below. For that purpose, some facts will have to be quoted which would be giving the idea of the controversy in issue. The original defendant Jagannath Murlidhar Rathi who is being represented by his L. Rs. was owner of the suit land bearing Gat No. 74 admeasuring 1 hecter and 15 ares situated in village Nandur Madhmeshvar, Taluka Niphad. The father of the present plaintiff-appellant named Dadamiya was the tenant of the said land prior to 1-4-1957 (tillers day ). There was an agreement between the deceased Jagannath Murlidhar Rathi and deceased Dadamiya dated 23-3-1956. By virtue of that agreement, deceased Jagannath Murlidhar Rathi had agreed to sell that land to Dadamiya and it was agreed between them that the deceased Jagannath Murlidhar Rathi was to obtain permission for sale of the said land to Dadamiya. At that time, there was a proceeding pending before the Mamlatdar and A. L. T. in view of provisions of section 32-G in respect of the said land as after the Act came in force Dadamiya acquired the status of "deemed purchaser". However, the original plaintiff averred that Dadamiya was confined to be in bed and, therefore, sale could not take place. It did not take place finally because Dadamiya died in the year 1962. After the death of Dadamiya, the present plaintiff entered into an agreement with deceased Jagannath Murlidhar Rathi on 6-6-1962 for the sale of the same land and even at that time also the proceedings in view of section 32-G of the Act were in continuation before the Mamlatdar and A. L. T. , Niphad. In the said agreement it was agreed that the said land was to be sold by the deceased Jagannath Murlidhar Rathi to Abdul son of Dadamiya on payment of consideration of Rs. 1500/- and as per his averment, the said amount was to be paid in four instalments. It is the case of the present appellant-the original plaintiff that on one occasion he had paid Rs. 1000/- to deceased Jagannath Murlidhar Rathi and on another occasion he had paid Rs. 100/- to him. Thus, Rs. 1100/- was paid and Rs. 400/- were to be paid and deceased Jagannath Murlidhar Rathi was to execute the sale deed in his favour.