Hiralal Dagdulal Kabra v. State of Maharashtra and others
1976-08-30
G.N.VAIDYA
body1976
DigiLaw.ai
JUDGMENT - G.N. VAIDYA, J.:---Special Civil Application No. 3017 of 1976 is filed by Hiralal Dagdulal Kabra, the son of Dagdulal, who died on March 8, 1958, leaving behind him the petitioner and three daughters out of whom one daughter by name Jankabai Laxminarayan died some time before leaving behind her as her heirs two sons shown as respondents Nos. 3 and 4 Narayandas and Ramprasad. The two other daughters are Sonubai and Godavaribai, who are respondents Nos. 5 6 in Special Civil Application No. 3017 of 1076. Narayan, Ramprasad, Sonubai and Godavaribai are the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 3621 of 1976. 2. The grievance of the petitioners in these two petitions is that the Surplus Lands Determination Tribunal, Hingoli, and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal have failed to exclude the shares of the pre-deceased sisters sons and the two sisters, who are all Class I heirs as per the Schedule to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which applied to the present case. Under that Act, section 19 lays down that the heirs succeed as tenants-in-common and not as joint tenants. 3. Under Section 3(3)(c) of the Ceiling Act, where any land is held by a person jointly with others, under section 3(3)(ii) of the Act, the share of the person shall be taken to be the extent of land such person would hold in proportion of his share in the joint holding, as if the land had been so divided and separately held on the relevant date i.e. October 2, 1975. 4. The two learned Tribunals have failed to give effect to section 3(3)(c)(ii) and thereby committed an error apparent on the face of the record. Mr. Salik, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, however, submitted that the lands were exclusively in the possession of Hiralal for over 12 years, and there was nothing to show that Hiralal gave any share in the income of the lands to his sisters or sisters sons; and, therefore the two learned Tribunals were quite right in not recognising the shares of the sisters. 5. There is no evidence on the record to show that the petitioner Hiralal was not giving any share to others. On the contrary, the case of Hiralal himself and the other petitioners is that they all have equal shares in the lands standing in the name of Hiralal in the record of rights.
5. There is no evidence on the record to show that the petitioner Hiralal was not giving any share to others. On the contrary, the case of Hiralal himself and the other petitioners is that they all have equal shares in the lands standing in the name of Hiralal in the record of rights. It is well settled that when persons hold as tenants-in-common, the possession of one is on behalf of others, unless ouster is established. There was no evidence of outser before the two learned tribunals. 6. The petitioner Hiralal himself had mentioned in the return filed by him that his sisters and sisters sons had share in the lands according to Hindu Succession Act. In such circumstances, it was the duty of the learned Tribunal to give effect to section 3(3)(c)(ii) of the Ceiling Act, which they have failed to do. 7. In the circumstances, the declarations of the surplus lands made by the Surplus Lands Determination Tribunal and confirmed by the Revenue Tribunal are liable to be quashed. The case must be restored to the file of the Surplus Lands Determination Tribunal, Hingoli for a fresh enquiry and for recognising the shares of the two sons of the pre-deceased sister and the two sisters and thereafter for considering to what extent the petitioner Hiralal would be a surplus holder giving him a fresh choice under section 16 of the Ceiling Act. 8. Rule absolute accordingly. The orders of the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal dated March 31, 1976, and of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated May 18, 1976 are quashed and set aside and file No. 75/ICH/HNL/272 is restored to the file of the Surplus Lands Determination Tribunal, Hingoli for carring out the directions mentioned hereinabove and disposing of the case in accordance with the law. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. -----