- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Shrikrishna Ninaji v. Namdeo Bapuji
Court Opinion Summary
Factual and Procedural Background
A question was referred to the Full Bench asking whether the decision in Manabai Hari v. Ramchandra (1958) — which held that the word "transfer" as used in sub-section (9) of section 9 of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951, does not include partition — was correctly decided. Because the present matter had to be decided by reference to the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region and Kutch Area) Act, 1958 (the "Tenancy Act"), and with consent of counsel, the Court altered the question to the following formulation for its determination:
"Whether partition is a transfer within the meaning of sub-section (7) of section 38 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region and Kutch Area) Act, 1958?"
The Court proceeded to decide that altered question by examining the Tenancy Act's text, related statutory definitions (including the reliance on the Transfer of Property Act where the Tenancy Act is silent), earlier judicial decisions, and the statutory scheme as a whole.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the earlier decision in Manabai Hari v. Ramchandra (1958) was correctly decided (as originally referred to the Full Bench).
- Whether partition is a "transfer" within the meaning of sub-section (7) of section 38 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region and Kutch Area) Act, 1958 (the question actually considered by the Full Bench).
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel Urging Reconsideration (Mr. Natu and Mr. Khare)
- They urged that the view taken in earlier cases (which treated partition as a transfer) should be reconsidered.
- The opinion records their submission but does not elaborate detailed argumentation beyond the request for reconsideration.
Counsel for Respondent No. 1 (Mr. Dharmadhikari)
- Relied on a passage from Dayabhai Nathubhai v. The State of Bombay stating that a person who gets property on partition becomes the sole owner and "acquires" the property (acquiring not only his erstwhile share but also the shares of co-owners).
- Argued from that passage that the allottee on partition acquires the land and therefore partition should be regarded as a transfer for the purposes of section 38(7).
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Manabai Hari v. Ramchandra (1958) 60 Bom. L.R. 1431 | Held under the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act that "transfer" does not include partition. | Referenced as the earlier decision whose correctness was put to the Full Bench; Court considered whether that view should apply under the Tenancy Act context. |
| Waman v. Ganpat (1935) 37 Bom. L.R. 925 | One of the series of decisions holding that partition is a transfer within the meaning of s.5 of the Transfer of Property Act. | Noted by the Court as part of existing judicial authority treating partition as a transfer under the Transfer of Property Act. |
| Jivram Jagjivandas v. Kantilal (1949) 52 Bom. L.R. 104 | Another decision in the series treating partition as a transfer under the Transfer of Property Act. | Cited to show that several earlier decisions held partition to be a transfer under the Transfer of Property Act. |
| Soniram Raghushet v. Dwarkabai (1950) 53 Bom. L.R. 325 | Decision treating partition as a transfer under the Transfer of Property Act. | Included among judgments showing judicial practice of regarding partition as a transfer under the Transfer of Property Act. |
| Dayabhai Nathubhai v. The State of Bombay (1959) 62 Bom. L.R. 348 | Contains observations (quoted in this opinion) that the person who gets property on partition "acquires" the property and becomes sole owner. | Relied upon by respondent's counsel to argue partition effects acquisition; the Court reproduced the passage and addressed its force in light of other authorities and statutory language. |
| Musammat Girja Bai v. Sadashiv Dhundiraj (1916 L.R. 43 I.A. 151; S.C. 18 Bom. L.R. 621) | Privy Council authority that partition does not give a title or create a title; it merely adjusts an already-arisen proprietary right into specific shares. | Relied upon by the Court to reject the argument that partition effects an acquisition of land; used to support the conclusion that partition does not amount to acquiring "any land" for the purposes of sub-s. (7) of s. 38. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court's legal analysis proceeded in several explicit steps, each rooted in the statutory text and cited authorities:
- Statutory background and definition: The Tenancy Act does not define "transfer." Clause (34) of section 2 of the Tenancy Act provides that, unless the context otherwise requires, words not defined in the Act have the meanings assigned in the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code and the Transfer of Property Act, as applicable. Because "transfer" is not defined in the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, it would have the meaning given by the Transfer of Property Act unless the context otherwise requires.
- Existing judicial position: The Court observed that judicial opinion is not uniform. A series of cases (Waman v. Ganpat, Jivram Jagjivandas, Soniram Raghushet, Dayabhai Nathubhai) treated partition as a transfer under s.5 of the Transfer of Property Act, while Manabai Hari raised doubt by holding otherwise under a different statutory regime (Berar Regulation).
- Focus on Tenancy Act context: The Court declined to decide the broader question whether partition is a transfer under the Transfer of Property Act itself, since the present issue required interpretation of the Tenancy Act's provisions. The Court concluded that the language and structure of the Tenancy Act indicate that partition is not a transfer within the meaning of sub-section (7) of section 38 of the Tenancy Act.
- Textual analysis of section 38: The Court examined section 38 as a whole. Section 38(1) permits a landlord to terminate tenancy on specific grounds with prescribed notices and dates; section 38(2) extends time for certain special categories (minor, widow, serving armed forces member, physically/mentally disabled) to give notice and apply for possession, subject to a proviso that if the person is a member of a joint family, his share must have been separated by metes and bounds before the prescribed date (fixed as June 30, 1959).
- Reading the critical phrase "acquired any land": Section 38(7) disqualifies a tenure-holder who "has acquired any land by transfer after August 1, 1953" from terminating tenancy of a protected lessee whose protection pre-dated the transfer. The Court observed that partition, properly understood, does not give a person a new proprietary title; rather, partition makes specific and definite what proprietary rights already existed. Relying on the Privy Council in Musammat Girja Bai, the Court held that partition does not create title or "acquisition" of land in the sense of obtaining new title from others; it converts a co-ownership share into exclusive possession of that already-owned portion.
- Differences in statutory language: The Court noted that sub-section (7) uses the phrase "acquired any land" and does not use broader formulations such as "any interest therein" (as used in other provisions like s.119-B). This choice of words indicates a narrower concept of "acquisition" that does not encompass partition.
- Avoiding conflict between provisions: The Court identified a potential conflict between s.38(2) and s.38(7) if partition were treated as a transfer. Section 38(2) was designed to benefit certain categories by extending their time to separate their share by metes and bounds before the prescribed date (June 30, 1959). If partition were a transfer, those who partitioned after August 1, 1953 but before June 30, 1959 would be deprived of the extended rights of s.38(2) with respect to protected tenants because s.38(7) would strip the right to terminate tenancy for those who acquired land by transfer after August 1, 1953. The Court applied the rule of statutory interpretation that provisions should be read to avoid conflict and thereby concluded "transfer" in s.38(7) should not be read to include partition.
- Cross-references to other sections: The Court pointed to sections 57 and 119-B of the Tenancy Act, where the statute expressly separates "transfer" and "partition" in multiple places (s.57(1) lists sale, gift, exchange, mortgage, lease, assignment or partition; s.57(2) speaks of "any transfer or partition"; s.119-B similarly distinguishes "transfer of land or of any interest therein ... or partition"). The explicit pairing of "transfer" and "partition" in those provisions indicates legislative intent to treat them as distinct concepts for Tenancy Act purposes.
- Policy consideration addressed: The Court acknowledged the argument that ruling partition not to be a transfer could undermine the Act's objective of securing tenant protection and fixity of tenure. The Court responded that the Act both imposes restrictions on landlords and creates specific statutory routes for landlords to obtain possession subject to conditions; not extending restrictions beyond those set by the Legislature does not frustrate the Act's object.
- Conclusion from combined textual and purposive analysis: Considering the statutory phrasing, the need to reconcile related provisions, the legislative distinction between transfer and partition elsewhere in the Act, and authoritative statement from the Privy Council that partition does not create title, the Court concluded partition is not a "transfer" within the meaning of s.38(7).
Holding and Implications
Holding: The Full Bench answered the formulated question in the negative — partition is not a transfer within the meaning of sub-section (7) of section 38 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region and Kutch Area) Act, 1958.
Direct implications:
- For the purposes of section 38(7) of the Tenancy Act, an allottee of land on partition is not regarded as having "acquired any land by transfer" after August 1, 1953; therefore s.38(7)'s disqualification (as worded) does not apply to such persons by reason only of partition.
- The decision reconciles and preserves the application of section 38(2) for persons in the special categories who separated their shares by metes and bounds before the prescribed date (June 30, 1959), even if partition occurred after August 1, 1953, because partition is not treated as a transfer that would invoke s.38(7).
The opinion does not elaborate any broader doctrinal reform or state that it is overruling or setting a new binding rule regarding the meaning of "transfer" under the Transfer of Property Act; rather, it interprets the term within the specific statutory context of s.38 of the Tenancy Act and explains the immediate legal effect on the statutory provisions at issue.
Answer: Accordingly, the Court answered the referred question in the negative.
Chainani, C.J:— The question referred to the Full Bench is: Whether Manabai Hari v. Ramchandra . 1958 60 Bom. L.R 1431, S.C [1958] N.L.J 453. was correctly decided? In that case, it was held that the word “transfer” as used in sub-s. (9) of s. 9 of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951 (No. XXIV of 1951) does not include partition. The case, in which this reference has been made has, however, to be decided by reference to the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region and Kutch Area) Act, 1958 (No. XCIX of 1958), hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act. With the consent of the advocates for the parties, we have, therefore, decided to alter the question, which is to be considered by us, as follows:
“Whether partition is a transfer within the meaning of sub-section (7) of section 38 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region and Kutch Area) Act, 1958?”
2. The word “transfer” is not defined in the Tenancy Act. Clause (34) of s. 2 of the Tenancy Act states that unless the context otherwise requires, the words and expressions used in this Act but not defined shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code and the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, as the case may be. The word “transfer” is also not defined in the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954. It will, therefore, have the meaning given to it in the Transfer of Property Act, unless the context otherwise requires. The judicial opinion on the question whether partition is a transfer is not uniform. This Court has, however, held in a series of cases that partition is a transfer within the meaning of the term as defined in s. 5 of the Transfer of Property Act: see Waman v. Ganpat . 1935 37 Bom. L.R 925.; Jivram Jagjivandas v. Kantilal . 1949 52 Bom. L.R 104.; Soniram Raghushet v. Dwarkabai . 1950 53 Bom. L.R 325.; and Dayabhai Nathubhai v. The State Of Bombay* . 1959 62 Bom. L.R 348.. Some doubt on these decisions was thrown in Manabai Hari v. Ramchandra, but as will he clear from the judgment in this case, it was decided in the light of the provisions of s. 9 of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act. Several cases under the bombay tenancy act have also been decided on the basis that partition is not a transfer within the meaning of this Act.
3. It has been urged by Mr. Natu and Mr. Khare that the view taken in the above cases should be reconsidered. We do not think that it is necessary to do so or to decide whether partition is a transfer within the meaning of the Transfer of Property Act, because the various provisions of the Tenancy Act, to which I will presently refer, clearly indicate that partition is not a transfer within the meaning of sub-s. (7) of s. 38 of that Act. Sub-section (1) of s. 38 states, inter alia, that a landlord may, after giving to the tenant a notice in writing at any time on or before February 15, 1961 and making an application for possession under s. 36 on or before March 31, 1961, terminate the tenancy of the land held by a tenant other than an occupancy tenant, if he bona fide requires the land for cultivating it personally. There is a proviso to this sub-section, with which we are not concerned. sub-section (2) of this section provides as follows:
“(2) Where the landlord is of the following category, namely:—
(a) a minor,
(b) a widow,
(c) a serving member of the armed forces, or
(d) a person subject to any physical or mental disability,
then, if he has not given a notice and made an application as required by sub-section (1), such notice may be given and such application may be made—
(A) by the landlord within one year from the date on which—
(i) in the case of category (a) he attains majority;
(ii) in the case of category (c) he ceases to serve in such force:
(iii) in the case of category (d) he ceases to be subject to such physical or mental disability; and
(B) in the case of widow by the successor in title within one year from the date on which the widow's interest in the land ceases to exist:
Provided that where a person of such category is a member of a joint family, the provisions of this sub-section shall not apply if at least one member of the joint family is outside of the categories mentioned in that sub-section unless the share of such person in the joint family has been separated by metes and bounds before the prescribed date and the Tahsildar on inquiry is satisfied that the share of such person in the land is separated, having regard to the area, assessment, classification and value of the land, in the same proportion as the share of that person in the entire joint family property and not in a larger proportion:…”
4. This sub-section extends the time for terminating the tenancy and making an application for possession in the case of the persons, who belong to the categories mentioned in cls. (a) to (d). This is subject to the conditions mentioned in the proviso, one of which is that if such person is a member of a joint family, his share in the joint family property has been separated by metes and bounds before the prescribed date. The Act came into force on December 30, 1958 and in order to enable persons falling within the special categories to get the benefit of this sub-section, June 30, 1959, was fixed as the prescribed date. They were, therefore, given about six months' time to get their shares separated by metes and bounds. If such a person's share was so separated before June 30, 1959, he can terminate the tenancy and apply for possession after this date, during the period specified in cls. (A) and (B) of the sub-section.
5. Sub-section (7) of s. 38 states that nothing in this section shall confer on a tenure-holder, who has acquired any land by transfer after August 1, 1953, a right to terminate the tenancy of a tenant who is a protected lessee and whose right as such protected lessee had come into existence before the transfer. This sub-section, therefore, applies to a tenure-holder, who has acquired the land held by a protected lessee by transfer after August 1, 1953. The first question, which arises for determination, is whether a person, who obtains a land as his share on partition, can be said to acquire the land by transfer.
6. Mr. Dharmadhikari, who appears on behalf of respondent No. 1, has relied upon the following observations in Dayabhai Nathubhai v. The State Of Bombay* (p. 349):
“…Whatever be the process which may be said to bring about this result of the co-owner or co-sharer to whom the property is allotted by the partition getting the property for his sole use, the result is that the person who gets the property on partition is constituted the sole owner of that property and he acquires in that particular property not only his own share, right, title and interest therein which he erstwhile enjoyed but also the share, right, title and interest of the other co-owners or co-sharers in that property.”
7. Mr. Dharmadhikari has, therefore, argued that as the person, to whom a land is allotted on partition, acquires by the process of partition the interest of other co-parceners in that land, he can be said to have acquired that land on partition. This argument is not correct, for, as observed by the Privy Council in Musammat Girja Bai v. Sadashiv Dhundiraj . 1916 L.R 43 I.A 151, at p. 161, S.C 18 Bom. L.R 621., partition does not give-him a title or create a title in him; it only enables him to obtain what is his own in a definite and specific form for purposes of disposition independent of the wishes of his former co-sharers. At page 159, their Lordships have quoted Sarkar's translation of a passage in Viromitrodaya by Mitra Misra, which is as follows:
“For partition is made of that in which proprietary right has already arisen, consequently partition cannot properly be set forth as a means of proprietary right. Indeed, what is effected by partition is only the adjustment of the proprietary right into specific shares.”
8. Partition does not, therefore, give the person, to whom a land is allotted, any new title or create a title in him to that land. He was already the owner of the land along with other co-parceners and partition only enables him to acquire exclusive title to that land. As, therefore, in the words of the Privy Council, partition only enables him to obtain in a definite and specific form the land, which was his own, it cannot be said that he has acquired that land. By the process of partition, he no doubt acquires the interest of other co-sharers in that land, but the words in the sub-section are “acquired any land”. It does not contain the words “or any interest therein”, such as are used in s. 119-B. The language used in sub-s. (7) of s. 38 of the Tenancy Act, therefore, itself indicates that this sub-section does not apply in cases, in which a person becomes the sole owner of the land as a result of partition.
9. Another difficulty in holding partition to be a transfer is that in that case there would be a conflict between sub-s. (2) and sub-s. (7) of s. 38. Under sub-s. (7), a tenure-holder, who has acquired any land by transfer after August 1, 1953, has no right to terminate the tenancy of the tenant, who is a protected lessee and whose right as such protected lessee had come into existence before the transfer. This sub-section applies to protected tenants only, while sub-ss. (1) and (2) apply to all tenants including protected tenants. As pointed out above, sub-s. (2) gives a right to a person, who belongs to one of the categories referred to in this sub-section, to terminate the tenancy of his tenant, even if he is a protected tenant, after June 30, 1959, if his share in the family property has been separated by metes and bounds before this date. He would be able to exercise this right, even if the partition has taken place after August 1, 1953, but before June 30, 1959. This right will not be available to him at least in respect of protected tenants if partition has taken place after August 1, 1953 and is regarded as a transfer. If it had been the intention of the Legislature to treat partition as a transfer, the date specified in the proviso to sub-s. (2) would have been the same as is mentioned in sub-s. (7), viz., August 1, 1953. The usual rule of interpretation is to read the different provisions of an Act in such a manner as to avoid a conflict between them. If, therefore, sub-ss. (2) and (7) are to be reconciled, as they should be, the word “transfer” as used in sub-s. (7) cannot be held to include a partition.
10. Our attention has also been invited to two other sections, ss. 57 and 119-B, in which a distinction has been drawn between “transfer” and “partition”. Sub-section (1) of s. 57 states that no land purchased by a tenant under s. 41 or 46 or 49-A or 130 or sold to any person under s. 91 or 122 shall be transferred by sale, gift, exchange, mortgage, lease or assignment or partitioned without the previous sanction of the Collector. Sub-section (2) states that any transfer or partition of land in contravention of sub-s. (1) shall be invalid. Section 119-B states that where any transfer of land or of any interest therein, whether by sale, gift, exchange, mortgage, lease or otherwise, or partition of land is invalid under any of the provisions of this Act, the acquisition of such land under such transfer or partition shall also be invalid. In these two sections, therefore, partition is not regarded as a transfer. This circumstance also shows that the Legislature did not intend that partition should be regarded as a transfer for the purposes of the Tenancy Act.
11. It has been urged that in the view, which we are inclined to take, we will be defeating the object of the Act, which is to protect the tenants and to give them fixity of tenure. It is, however, necessary to remember that while the Act imposes several restrictions on landlords, it also contains provisions enabling the landlords to obtain possession of their lands on certain grounds, subject to the conditions specified in the Act.
12. The object of the Act cannot, therefore, be said to have been frustrated, if the restrictions on the landlords are not extended beyond those, which are imposed by the Act.
13. In our opinion, therefore, partition is not a transfer within the meaning of sub-s. (7) of s. 38 of the Tenancy Act. The reply to the question as formulated by us above will, therefore, he in the negative.
14. Answer accordingly.
Alert