Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

BHARMAPPA NEMANNA KAWALE AND ANR. versus DHODI BHIMA PATIL AND ORS.

Decided
25 March 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1996] 3 S.C.R. 884 · 1996 INSC 446
Not shown
2 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.

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.

Delay condoned. Substitution ordered. Leave granted. We have heard the learned counsel on both sides.

p. 884, margin F

The admitted position is that the civil Court decreed the suit for eviction against the appellant holding that he was not a tenant which order had become final. The same plea of want of jural relationship is sought to be raised in execution. When the objection raised was negatived, the High

p. 884, margin G

B.N. KAWALEv. D,B. PATIL 885 Court in Writ Petition No. 3319 of 1992 by order dated November 22, 1991 directed the 'executing Court to go into the question. Accordingly,, this appeal by special leave came to be filed. ~

p. 885

Shri Bhasme, learned counsel for the ~espondenfs, contended that irr view of the specific language employed in Section 85-A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands.Act, 1948 the only compete~t authority that has to go into the question is the revenue authority under the Ai:t and civil Court has no jurisdiction to go into the question whether the appellant is a tenant or not. There fore, the High Court was right in directing the executing court to go into the questfon. It is rather ·unfortunate that the respondent has allowed the decree ho_lding that he is not a tenant to become fmal. Having allowed it to bec~me final, it 'is not open to him to contend that he is still a tenant under .the Act and therefore the decree is nullity. Under those circumstances, the executing Court was right in refusing to entertain the objection for executing the decree. The High Court was not justified, the circumstances, in directing the executive Court to consider the objection. • · , . ·

p. 885, margin A

The appeal.is acco;dingly allowed. No costs .. ·R.P. •' App~al allowed.

p. 885, margin D

•· . '

p. 885, margin D

-·•· ,, ~ . l ' '•

p. 885, margin D