Allowed

Latabai Vitthal Kate and Others v. Mallikarjun Apparao Rajmane and Others

Bombay HC24 Sept 2013LPA/20/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad dismissed an appeal against an order regarding a belated application for reference under Section 99A of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. Clarified that the trial court must first decide on the case for reference before proceeding to merits.

What did the court decide?

Clarified procedure for trial court to decide on reference under Section 99A first; trial court given liberty to consider reference at final arguments stage.

Latabai Vitthal Kate and Others Vs Mallikarjun Apparao… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

(1)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.

¶3

Letters Patent Appeal No. 20 of 2013 ( Against Order dated 24-1-2013, in Writ Petition No. 154 of 2012 )

¶4

Latabai w/o. Vitthal Kate, Age : 37 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Ashiv, Taluka : Ausa, District : Latur, and also Dhutta, Taluka & District : Osmanabad.

¶5

Janabai w/o. Dattatraya Shinde, Age : 35 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Ashiv, Taluka : Ausa, District : Latur, and also Kilaj, Taluka : Tuljapur, District : Osmanabad.

¶6

Meerabai w/o. Udhav Tambe, Age : 31 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Ashiv, Taluka : Ausa, District : Latur, and also Kumbhari, Taluka : Tuljapur, District : Osmanabad.

¶7

.. Appellants (Original plaintiffs)

¶8

versus

¶9

Mallikarjun Apparao Rajmane, Age : 47 years, Occupation : Agriculture.

¶10

(2)

¶11

Ashok Apparao Rajmane, Died through L.Rs. :

¶12

2/1. Suneeta w/o. Ashok Rajmane, Age : 41 years, Occupation : Household.

¶13

2/2. Ravikira s/o. Ashok Rajmane, Age : 26 years, Occupation : Agriculture.

¶14

2/3. Swati d/o. Ashok Rajmane, Age : 20 years, Occupation : Household.

¶15

2/4. Jyoti d/o. Ashok Rajmane, .. Respondent Age : 19 years, no.2/4 deleted. Occupation : Household.

¶16

All R/o. Wangji, Taluka : Ausa, District : Latur.

¶17

Shivdarshan Apparao Rajmane, Age : 40 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Wangji, Taluka : Ausa, District : Latur.

¶18

Anil Apparao Rajmane, Age : 37 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. as above.

¶19

Shantabai d/o. Apparao Rajmane, Age : 45 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. as above.

¶20

(3)

¶21

Rajabai w/o. Madhukar Gadave, Age : 45 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Gadavewadi, Taluka : Ausa, District : Latur.

¶22

Ushabai w/o. Pandit Wadekar, Age : 33 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Makani, .. Respondents Taluka : Lohara, (Original defendants) District : Osmanabad.

¶23

Mr. B.N. Patil, Advocate, for the appellants.

¶24

Mr. S.P. Urgunde, Advocate, for respondent nos.1, 2/1 to 2/3 and 3 to 7.

¶25

Respondent no.2/4 deleted vide court's order dated 5-7-2013.

¶26

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ.

¶27

DATE : 24TH SEPTEMBER 2013

¶28

COURT'S ORDER (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) :

¶29

Heard Adv. Mr. B.N. Patil for the appellants, and Adv. Mr. S.P. Urgunde for the respondents.

¶30

The appellants before this Court are original plaintiffs who sought reference of a dispute about nature of relationship between parties

¶31

(4)

¶32

to a competent authority in accordance with the provisions of Hyderabad Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 [For short, "1950 Act" ], as provided for in Section 99A.

¶33

Adv. Mr. Patil submits that the issue to that effect was already framed and thereafter parties have led evidence. The trial court was duty bound and is duty bound to answer that issue. He submits that said issue requires adjudication first and till that issue is adjudicated upon, controversy on merits involved in Civil Suit cannot be touched. Hence, joint consideration of both these aspects by the learned Single Judge is unsustainable.

¶34

Adv. Mr. Urgunde submits that though issue was framed, parties have led evidence with open eyes and after completion of evidence, appellants / original plaintiffs sought to move application seeking reference. The trial court, as also, learned Single Judge have appreciated controversy in this background and there is no jurisdictional error or perversity.

¶35

It is, no doubt, true that when an issue is framed, the same needs to be referred to the competent authority for its adjudication. However, here, that adjudication was not sought immediately and plaintiffs, as also defendants, completed their respective evidence. After recording of evidence was over, the appellants / original plaintiffs moved application under Section 99A of 1950 Act and sought reference. The trial court, as also learned Single Judge of this Court, have therefore, found such application and approach belated.

¶36

(5)

¶37

We, however, note that the learned Single Judge has not held that adjudication of said dispute is not necessary. On the contrary, the appellants / original plaintiffs are given liberty to point out need of such reference again at the stage of final arguments of the suit.

¶38

In view of this, we do not see any need to interfere in the matter. However, it is clarified that the trial court, after hearing arguments on the question of reference, shall first decide whether a case for reference under Section 99A of 1950 Act is made out or not. If it finds that such case is made out, it cannot proceed further to decide the controversy on merits and it has to wait till the question of relationship is appropriately answered by the competent authority. However, if it finds that no case for reference is made out, it is free to proceed further and pass appropriate orders deciding controversy on merits. It is open to the trial court to undertake this exercise jointly and decide both the issues together in one effort i.e. judgment to be delivered in terms of Order XX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

¶39

With the above clarification, we dispose of the Letters Patent Appeal. No costs.

¶40

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE ) ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶41

...........................

¶42

bgp/lpa20

Latabai Vitthal Kate and Others v. Mallikarjun Apparao Rajmane and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Latabai Vitthal Kate and Others v. Mallikarjun Apparao Rajmane and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhupendra Darbarsing Raval Vs the State Election Commission and Others

Suresh Sakhabapu Deshmukh Vs the State of Mah

Samad Razak Patel and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Idea Cellular Ltd. Vs State of Mah and Ors.

Idea Cellular Ltd. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Quippo Telecom Infrastructure Limited Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.