IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4382 OF 2014

DIGAMBER & ANR.     …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

KACHRU DEAD THR. LRS. & ORS.               …RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

R. BANUMATHI, J.

1. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 13.01.2005 passed

by  the  High  Court  of  Bombay  at  Aurangabad  Bench  in  Writ  Petition

No.1389 of 1989 whereby the High Court held that the predecessors in

title  of  the  appellants  namely  Vasudeo  and  Chandu  cannot  take

advantage of Section 5 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands

Act, 1950.

2. Kisan Punde, predecessor in title of the respondents namely Vithal,

Tukaram, Kachru and Madan (erstwhile respondents No.1 to 4) was the

owner  of  the  agricultural  land.  The  suit  land  was  owned  by  Kisan

Punde/father  of  respondents  No.1  to  4  herein  and  the  land  was

mortgaged  to  one  Vasudeorao  for  Rs.200/-  in  1941  and  which  was

further mortgaged to Chandu Narsingh Pardeshi/father of appellants in

1

REPORTABLE

the year 1942. Possession of the suit land was given to Vasudeorao who

gave possession to the father of the appellants. Appellants are thus the

mortgagees  of  the  suit  land  admeasuring  29  acres  and  4  gunthas

situated at Dhondalgaon, Aurangabad and they are in possession since

1942 vide mortgage deed dated 25.02.1942. Chandu/father of appellants

has alienated 5 acres of land to respondents Bakru s/o Rangnath and

Sheelabai w/o Uttamrao Deshpande.  

3. Aggrieved  by  such  alienation,  sons  of  Kisan  namely  Vithal,

Tukaram, Kachru and Madan filed petition before the Additional Collector,

Aurangabad  for  termination  of  the  mortgage  and  restoration  of

possession  under  Section  10  of  the  Prevention  of  Agricultural  Lands

Alienation Act, 1939 read with Section 103 of the Hyderabad Tenancy

and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. The said application was allowed ex-

parte  on  27.07.1984.  The  said  order  was  challenged  before  the

Additional  Commissioner.  The  Additional  Commissioner  in  appeal

remanded  the  case  to  the  Additional  Collector  on  12.03.1986  with  a

direction to decide the matter afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to

both the parties.

4. The  Additional  Collector  after  consideration  of  evidence  placed

before  him,  by  order  dated  14.05.1988,  recorded  a  finding  that

respondents No.1 to 4 – sons of Kisan are entitled to have possession of

the suit  property  as  per  Section  10  of  the 1939 Act  and allowed the

2

application filed by sons of Kisan. Revision filed by the appellants before

Additional  Commissioner  was  dismissed  vide  order  dated  30.03.1989

confirming the order of the Additional Collector.

5. Aggrieved by the order of Additional Commissioner, appellants filed

the  writ  petition.  The said  Writ  Petition  No.1389 of  1989  filed  by  the

appellants before the High Court  was dismissed vide impugned order

dated 13.01.2005 holding that the proceedings initiated by the sons of

Kisan namely Vithal, Tukaram, Kachru and Madan is maintainable.  The

High Court held that Section 5 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural

Lands Act, 1950 excludes the mortgagee in possession to be termed as

“deemed  tenant”.  Aggrieved  by  the  above  order,  appellants  have

preferred this appeal.  Respondents No.1, 2 and 6 were deleted from the

array of parties at the risk of the appellants vide order of this Court dated

23.08.2011.  

6. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties

and perused the materials on record.

7. Mr.  Babasaheb  Govindrao  Kale  representing  the  purchasers

(respondents  No.1  to  9)  and Mr.  Devidaas  Madan Punde for  original

owner (representing respondents No. 10 to 17) are personally present in

the Court.

8. During  the  course  of  hearing,  all  parties  concerned  have

negotiated the matter and have amicably settled the matter.  The various

3

parties who are having interest in the suit property have filed intervention

applications  to  become  part  of  the  settlement.   The  intervention

applications  are  allowed.  Apart  from  the  parties  in  appeal,  all  the

concerned  parties  viz.  Barku  Raghunath  Raut,  Janabai  Barku  Raut,

Shriram  Kashinath  Wakle,  Annapurna  Shriram  Wakle,  Babasaheb

Shriram Wakle, Kushinath Eknath Kale, Rajendra Eknath Kale, Vimalbai

Babasaheb  Kale,  Yogesh  Babasaheb  Kale,  Devidas  Madan  Punde,

Kailas Madan Punde, Bhimabai Madan Punde, Indubai Surybhan Tathe,

Sindhubai  Dadasaheb  Pawar,  Dnyaneshwar  Sarjaram  Pawar  and

Gayabai  Machindra Pawar have filed their  affidavits sworn in by them

individually stating that they have amicably settled the matter and that

they have entered into a Memo of Compromise. They have stated that in

terms of Compromise Memo (Annexure-A3) and Sketch (Annexure-A5),

the appeal may be disposed of.  

9. As  per  the  terms  of  Compromise  Memo,  the  following  is  the

present Family  Holdings of  the Suit  Land i.e.  25 acres and the same

reads as under:-

I. Digamber Chandu Shingrule Family (Party  in  all  proceedings  being  the  Lease Holder)

: 8 Acres 5 R

II. Vimalabai Babasaheb Kale Family : 5 Acres 1 R III. Barku Raghunath Raut Family

(Barku Raghunath is the party in all the courts) : 7 Acres 33 R

IV. Shriram Kashinath Wakle Family : 4 Acres 2 R V. Bhaskar Eknanath Pansare

(All  above  said  family  are  r/o  Dhondalgaon, Taluka  Vaijapur,  Aurangabad  District, Maharashtra)

: 1 Acre

4

Total : 25  Acre  40 R = 26 Acre

The respondents herein are agreeable to take 15 acres of land from the above said

family holdings in the following manner:-

I. Digamber Chandu Shingrule Family : 6 Acres II. Vimalabai Babasaheb Kale Family : 2 Acres  III. Barku Raghunath Raut Family

(Barku Raghunath is the party in all the courts) : 5 Acres  

IV. Shriram Kashinath Wakle Family : 2 Acres V. Bhaskar Eknanath Pansare : 0

Total : 15 Acre  

10. As  per  the  Memo  of  Compromise,  how  the  lands  are  to  be

distributed among the parties as shown by way of Chart of allotment of

land is as under:-

Respondent – Original Land Owners Sl. No. Branch No. A Allotted

Kachru Kishan Punde (Dead) Plot No. Area HR

1. Dnyaneswar Sharjaram Pawar 4B 0.75

2. Gayabai Machhindra Pawar 4C 0.36

3. Gayabai Machhindra Pawar 16 0.44

Total 1.55 3  Acre  35 Gunthe

Branch B

Madan Kisan Punde (Dead) Plot No. Area HR

1. Kailash Madan Punde 4A 0.26 R

2. Kailash Madan Punde 5 0.17 R

3. Kailash Madan Punde 9 0.34 R

4. Devidas Madan Punde 1 0.61 R

5. Devidas Madan Punde 7 0.17 R

Total 1.55 R 3  Acre  35 Gunthe

Branch C

Tukaram Kisan Punde (Dead) Plot No. Area HR

1. Hausabai Tukaram Punde 19 0.49 R

2. Hausabai Tukaram Punde 18C 0.22 R

3. Hausabai Tukaram Punde 18A 0.13 R

4. Hausabai Tukaram Punde 17 0.36 R

5. Hausabai Tukaram Punde 24 0.40 R

Total 1.60 R 4 Acre

Total Land to Respondent 4.70 R

Intervenor/Purchaser

1. Janyabai Barku Raut 2 0.50 R

2. Barku Raghunath Raut 3 0.63 R

5

3. Shriram Kashinath Wakle 6 0.23 R

4. Annapurna Shriram Wakle 8 0.23 R

5. Babasaheb Shriram Wakle 10 0.46 R

6. Kushinath Eknath Kale 12B 0.20 R

7. Kushinath Eknath Kale 20 0.20 R

8. Kushinath Eknath Kale 22 0.20 R

9. Vimalbai Babasaheb Kale 12A 0.20 R

10. Vimalbai Babasaheb Kale 14A 0.20 R

11. Rajendra Eknath Kale 14B 0.20 R

12. Rajendra Eknath Kale 21 0.20 R

13. Yogesh Babasaheb Kale 11 0.20 R

14. Yogesh Babasaheb Kale 13 0.20 R

15. Yogesh Babasaheb Kale 23 0.20 R

16. Parigabai Digamber Shrigule 18B 0.05 R

Total 4.10 R 10 Acre  10 Gunthe

Particular of Total Land

Branch A 1.55 R 3 Acre 35 Gunthe

Branch B 1.55 R 3 Acre 35 Gunthe

Branch C 1.60 R 4 Acre

Total 4.70 R 11 Acre  30 Gunthe

Intervenor 4.10 R 10 Acre 10 Gunthe

Water Project 2.84 R 7 Acre 4 Gunthe

Total Land 11.64 R 29 Acre 4 Gunthe

The above suit land is divided into plots and allotted as indicated in the

chart are marked in the map/sketch filed (Annexure-A5).  The persons

who are parties to the settlement of the matter have also filed individual

affidavits endorsing the compromise entered into between the parties.

11. The appeal is disposed of in terms of Memo of Compromise.  The

terms of Compromise (Annexure-A3) and the maps/sketches (Annexure-

A5)  filed  thereon  showing  the  division  of  the  properties  amongst  the

parties, shall form part of this judgment.

6

12. The Registry is directed to draft a decree in terms of the Memo of

Compromise  effected  between  the  parties.  The  terms  of

Compromise/Memo  of  allotment  of  shares  to  the  concerned  parties

(Annexure-A3) and also map/sketch filed thereon showing the division of

the properties amongst the parties (Annexure-5) shall  form part  of the

decree also.

13. Parties  are  directed  to  co-operate  with  each  other  in  effecting

mutation  by  moving  appropriate  applications  before  the  concerned

authority.  The  concerned  authority  is  directed  to  take  note  of  the

compromise between the parties and effect mutation accordingly.

14. It is further directed that the parties concerned are at liberty to file

the  decree  before  the  concerned Sub-Registrar  for  registration  of  the

decree who shall register the same on compliance with the Rules and in

accordance with law.

15. The appeal is accordingly, disposed of in above terms.

……………………….J. [R. BANUMATHI]

……………………….J.           [A.S. BOPANNA]

NEW DELHI; DECEMBER 02, 2019.

7