June 22, 2018
Case name: Vithu C. Agaskar” & Ors. v. Shri. Rama Gajanan Agaskar & Ors.
The case at hand dealt with “certificate of purchase” issued under the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural land Act. The issue confronted by the High Court of Bombay was whether the certificate of purchase issued under the Act was conclusive proof of purchase.
Brief facts of the case– In the case, the Appellant claimed that he was the sole tenant of the suit land on the basis of Certificate of purchase issued to him under Section 32M of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural land Act.
Section 32 M of BT & AL Act states that on the deposit of the price in lump sum or of the last installment of such price the Agricultural Lands Tribunal shall issue a certificate of purchase to the tenant-purchaser in respect of the land and that such certificate shall be conclusive evidence of purchase.
The respondents in the case have denied that Appellant was the sole tenant/purchaser of the property. They have stated that the Appellant had paid the purchase price of the acquired land out of the sale proceeds of the joint family land.
The Bombay High Court in the case while dismissing the Appeal observed as under:
- That on the basis of evidence, the Bombay High Court held that the Appellant had no independent tenancy right but held the property as a tenant in common on behalf of the joint family.
- That under such circumstances, the certificate of purchase issued in the name of Appellant, would be for and on behalf of the joint family.
- That the certificate of purchase issued to The said certificate would at the most be conclusive proof of purchase against the owner of the land. The tenancy rights of the joint tenants cannot be negated solely on the ground that the certificate of purchase was issued in favour of Karta of a joint family or any elderly person of a joint family.
Hence, the certificate of purchase cannot be the conclusive proof of title, vis-a-vis the joint tenants.