RAGHUNATHversusPOPAT LAL AND ORS.

                                                                                   f
                                                                                       J
A                                RAGHUNATH
                                      v.
                              POPAT LAL AND ORS.
                                                                                           •

                                FEBRUARY 14, 1996

B               [K. RAMASWAMY ANDS. SAGHIR AHMED, JJ.]

             Bombay Tenancy and Aglicultural Lands Act, 1948 :

             Tenants purchasing the equity redemption of lands for considera-
C tion-One of the tenants selling the undivided interest in the land to the
  mother of the appellant-Mamlatdar and appellate auth01ity recorded a
  finding that the lesser 1ight of tenancy stood merged with the tenants' larger
  1ight as owners and they no longer remained tenants and the purchaser alone
  was held to be owner of the undivided share in the land-High Court reversing
  the order-~n appeal, held, the respondents 2 and 3 and the appeliant
D became co-owners in the property and entitled to p01tition after redemption
  of 11101tgage in equal moiety and enjoyment thereof-Respondents to deposit
  the sum as directed in the prelimin01y decree-on such deposit being made,
  llial cowt to draw up the final decree within four weeks and to deliver
  possession of his share of land to the appellant within six weeks thereafter.
E         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1990 (N)
    of 1979.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 19.3.76 of the Bombay High
    Court in A. No. 584 of 1974.
F
    lants.
             Mrs ..T.S. Wad, Manoj Wad and Mrs. S. Usha Reddy for the Appel-               ...
             G.B. Sathe and AS. Bhasme for the Respondents.

G            The following Order of the Court was delivered :

          The only question is whether the respondents can claim right as
    tenants to the possession of the demised lands under the Bombay Tenancy
    and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act')? The admitted facts
    are that the land originally belonged to one Lilachand Bhandari. He
H   hypothecated the lands on July 27, 1942 in favour of one Hirachand, the
                                        660
. -r

                            RAGHUNATH v. POPAT LAL                            661

       father of respondent Nos. 1 and 4 (defendants 1 & 4) under the possessory A
       mortgage. In 1947- 48 Hirachand leased those lands to respondent Nos. 2
       and 3 (defendants 2 & 3). While remaining to be tenants, respondent No.2
       had purchased the equity of redemption of the suit lands for a sum of Rs.
       12,000 on December 27, 1949. The second respondent in turn sold half of
       the undivided interest in the land to one Housabai, mother of the appellant
                                                                                    B
       on January 19, 1950. From these facts the question arose : whether the
       second and the third respondents remained to be tenants in the land after
       the Act had come into force? When the matter was referred to Mamlatdar
       for decision, a finding was recorded by him and also by the appellate
       authority that the property having been purchased by way of equity of
       redemption, the lesser right of tenancy stood merged with their larger right  c
       as owners and that, therefore, the respondents no longer remained to be
       the tenants; consequently the appellant alone was held to be the owner of
       undivided share in the land and the respondent could not claim tenancy
       rights under the Act. But, unfortunately, the High Court in Second Appeal
       reversed the said finding and held in the impugned order that the respon- D
       dents remained to be tenants and that, therefore, the Act got attracted.
       The appellant thereby had to surrender his rights to the tenants. Thus this
       appeal by special leave.

              It would be seen that though the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had come
       into possession as tenants in the year 1947-48 from the mortgagee E
       Hirachand, after the second respondent's purchase of the equity of
       redemption on December 27, 1949, they became absolute owner of the suit
       property. Thereby, their lesser tenancy rights which they had under the




-...
       mortgagee Hirachand, stood merged with their larger interest as owner of
       the lands. Thereby on and from December 27, 1949 they ceased to be the p
       tenants. Having sold the undivided half land to the mother of the appellant
       who has since died and the appellant havifig succeeding the land by
       intestate succession by registered conveyance dated January 19, 1950 they
       became co-owners in the property. Thereby, they are ~ntitled to partition
       of the same after redemption of the mortgage in equal moiety and enjoy-
       ment thereof. The suit of the appellant, therefore, is clearly maintainable. G
       It is accordingly to be decreed.

              We are informed that pursuant to the preliminary decree granted by
       the trial Court, the appellant had deposited a sum of Rs. 4,000 as directed
       in the preliminary decree but it would appear that the respondents have       H
    662                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [1996] 2 S.C.R.

A not deposited their share. Three months time from today is granted to the
    respondents to deposit the same. On deposit being so made, the trial Court
    would draw up the final decree within four weeks thereafter and pass
    appropriate orders according to law and deliver possession of the land that
    fell to the share of the appellant, within six weeks thereafter.

B          The appeal accordingly allowed. No costs.

    G.N.                                                      Appeal allowed.