Supreme Court of India
NARAYAN BHIMJI VADANGALE AND ANR. versus HUKUMCHAND CHUNILAL THOLE AND ANR
- Decided
- 6 December 1991
- Judges listed
- M.M. PUNCHHI, G.N. RAY
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Citations
- Official
- [1991] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 239 · 1991 INSC 327
- Also cited as
- AIR 1992 SC 503
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
- Not shown
- 2 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.1.1979 of the High Court of Bombay passed in Second Appeal No. 625of1975.
p. 240, margin E
The appellants herein are heirs of the original judgment-debtor. The respondents herein is the decree holder firm. The decree holder firm as plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a sum of money against the Defendant judgmentdebtor. The suit was decreed. In execution thereof some agricultural land of the judgment-debtor was attached and put to auction. The decree holder firm with due permission of the Court emerged as the successful bidder at the auction. The auction was later confirmed by the Executing Court and a sale certificate was issued to the firm.
p. 240, margin F
In the meantime, before the issuance of the sale certificate, the heirs of the judgment-debtor moved an Objection Petition under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the Executing Court on the ground that the auction sale was violative of Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 inasmuch as the decree holder firm was non-agriculturist. This .objection found favour with the Executing Court and was affirmed in appeal but the same was reversed by the High Court. The High Court took the view that the firm being an inanimate person could neither be an agriculturist nor a non-agriculturist. For the view taken the High Court took in aid the definition of the word 'agriculturist' contained in Section 2(2) of the aforesaid Act which meant a person who cultivates the land personally. Since the firm as such was held by the High Court to be incapa,ble of personal cultivation the auction sale was taken out of the purview of Section 63 of the Act resulting in the dismissal of the Objection Petition giving rise to the present appeal.
pp. 240–241, margin G
Now we are required to examine whether the view taken by the High Court in treating the firm as inanimate, incapable of personal cultivation of agricultural land is correct or otherwise. No elaboration is necessary to understand the legal composition of a firm and its personality which is a name given compendiously to a group of people who comprise its partners, and those people have naturally to be live persons. When we talk of a firm cultivating land we mean to convey that it is the partners of the firm who cultivate the land and in that sense the firm cultivates it personally. the firm may be inanimate but the partners comprising thereof are people in flesh and blood. On this analysis the basis of the judgment of the High Court gets knocked off. Whether the firm is agriculturist or non-agriculturist would depend upon the activities of its partners. It is worthwhile to mention here that in order to· determine as to whether partners of the fitm were agriculturists or not the Executing Court ventured to send to the revenue Court for trial an issue to that effect under Section 85-A of the said Act as required by law. The revenue Court returned the finding that both the partners of the firm were agriculturists but as members of a joint family their holding was reckoned as such and was beyond their ceiling limit. Relying on such finding the Executing Court sustained the objection. But it was obvious that under Section 63 of the said Act no person, including a Hindu Joint Family, could purchase area which would go to excee9 the ceiling area to which he or jt was entitled. It is undisputed that the auction sale has gone to swell the area of the joint family; members of which were the two partners comprising the firm, so as to exceed the ceiling area. This being the position it inevitably follows that the auction sale in favour of the respondents herein has to be declared as void under Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The objection is thus sustained, the judgment and order of the High Court is set aside and that of the Executing Court as confirmed by the First Appellate Court restored. In the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.
p. 241, margin C
,. N.P.V. Appeal allowed.
p. 241, margin G