Skip to content


Bhola and anr. Vs. Murthi Mandir Shri Jai Narayanji and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 368 (N) of 1976
Judge
Reported inAIR1978SC299; (1978)1SCC66; 1977(9)LC791(SC)
ActsRajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 - Sections 15, 19 and 19(4); Rajasthan Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1959 - Sections 19
AppellantBhola and anr.
RespondentMurthi Mandir Shri Jai Narayanji and anr.
Excerpt:
.....act, 1959 - suit for declaration by appellant to the effect that he is tenant of lands covered by suit - high court reversed order passed by lower authorities - facts and circumstances reveal that appellant was entitled to status of 'khatedar' tenant - held, high court order liable to be set aside. - rules 4 & 5 & sale of goods act, 1930, sections 39 & 23: [s.b.sinha, a.k.ganguly & r.m. lodha,jj] valuation - whether freight and insurance charges be added in the value of goods for computation of excise duty? - goods (electric meters) supplied by assessee to state electricity boards under two contracts: one in respect of the supply of the electric meters and another for transportation and transit insurance thereof - value of electric meters was to be fixed as at the factory gate as..........reached the high court at the instance of the landlord, the decision earlier rendered by the revenue authority was reversed on grounds which we find difficult to follow to put it mildly.2. after a full debate of the case, it became fairly plain that whether the version of the plaintiff or of the defendant were true on fact, the plaintiff was entitled to the status of khatedar tenant. however at the end of the arguments, shri. tarkunde appearing for the appellants stated that now that he was sure of being treated as a tenant under the statute by virtue of amendment act 7 of 1959 to section 19 of the parent act, he was willing by way of concession to pay compensation computed on the basis prescribed in section 19(4) of the act without prejudice to such contentions as may be raised.....
Judgment:

V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.

1. This is an appeal by special leave by a tenant who lost in the High Court although he had succeeded before the Board of Revenue and the Revenue Appellate Authority. The subject matter of the litigation stems from a suit for a declaration by the plaintiff (who is the appellant before us) to the effect that he is a tenant of the lands covered by the suit. The landlord respondent is the deity of Shri. Jai Narayanji represented by the hevait. The trial court (the revenue court at the floor level) dismissed the suit. But in appeal the plaintiff appellant was held to be a khatedar tenant under Section 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. When a Second Appeal was carried to the Board of Revenue the appellants' position as a khatedar tenant was maintained but rested on Section 15 of the Act. When the matter reached the High Court at the instance of the landlord, the decision earlier rendered by the revenue authority was reversed on grounds which we find difficult to follow to put it mildly.

2. After a full debate of the case, it became fairly plain that whether the version of the plaintiff or of the defendant were true on fact, the plaintiff was entitled to the status of Khatedar tenant. However at the end of the arguments, Shri. Tarkunde appearing for the appellants stated that now that he was sure of being treated as a tenant under the statute by virtue of Amendment Act 7 of 1959 to Section 19 of the parent Act, he was willing by way of concession to pay compensation computed on the basis prescribed in Section 19(4) of the Act without prejudice to such contentions as may be raised under Section 15. This jesture is acceptable to the respondent in view of the fundamental flaws in his case as emerged during the debate.

3. We therefore, hold that the appellant is entitled to the status of a khatedar tenant of the lands covered by the suit and declare so. We further direct the appellants to pay compensation to the respondent on the basis fixed under Section 19(4) of the Act. The respondent will move the appropriate revenue authority for fixation of the compensation whereupon the said sum will be paid by the appellants. We allow the appeal and reverse the judgment of the High Court, but, in the circumstance, the parties will bear their own costs, throughout.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //