Supreme Court of India
BAPU MAHADU. MALI & ORS. versus VITHALRAO BHAUSAHEB DESHMUKH AND ANR.
- Decided
- 2 November 1995
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 746 · 1995 INSC 682
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.
Leave granted. We do not find any justification warranting interference in this appeal.
p. 747, margin C
The only point before the Revenue Tribunal and the High Court was of the title. For valid reasons the contention was rejected.
p. 747, margin C
Admittedly, there was a suit for possession by the rival revcrsioncrs. The appellants-landlords were the defendants in the snit. The suit ended against the landlords-appellants and thereby the title remained with the other side of the reversioners. Since the respondents remained in possession for more than 12 years they have prescribed title by adverse possession. That apart, the appellants' having entered into a tenancy agreement with the respondents they are estopped under Section 116 of the Evidence Act to deny the title of the landlords. Having these insurmountable difficulties in the way, Shri V.N. Ganpule, learned senior counsel for the appellants, contended that when a notice was issued to the appellants to pay Nazrana after the abolition of wattan, the appellants had paid the same and thereby became entitled to remain in possession and Section 31 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 has no application. This contention was rejected by the appellate authorities recording the finding that the respondents paid the Nazrana but this finding was not canvassed either before the Revenue Tribunal or the High Court. No clinching evidence has been produced before us to show that the appellants had paid Nazrana. The contention, therefore, has no substance.
p. 747, margin D
The civil appeal is accordingly dismissed \vithout costs. G.N. Appeal dismissed.
p. 747, margin G