Supreme Court settles land dispute in mortgage case: Digamber vs. Kachru (2 December 2019)

Date of the Judgment: 2 December 2019
Citation: 2019 INSC 1234
Judges: R. Banumathi, J. and A.S. Bopanna, J.

Can a long-standing land dispute be resolved through amicable settlement? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a decades-old mortgage and subsequent claims of ownership. The core issue revolved around the rights of a mortgagee in possession of agricultural land and the claims of the original landowners. This judgment, delivered by a bench of Justices R. Banumathi and A.S. Bopanna, ultimately disposed of the appeal based on a compromise reached between the parties involved.

Case Background

The case originated from a land dispute in Aurangabad, Maharashtra. Kisan Punde owned the agricultural land, which was mortgaged to Vasudeorao in 1941 for Rs. 200. In 1942, the land was further mortgaged to Chandu Narsingh Pardeshi, the father of the appellants, and possession was given to him. The appellants, Digamber and another, are the successors of Chandu and have been in possession of the land since 1942. Chandu alienated 5 acres of land to respondents Bakru and Sheelabai. Aggrieved by this alienation, the sons of Kisan Punde, namely Vithal, Tukaram, Kachru, and Madan, sought the termination of the mortgage and restoration of possession.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The sons of Kisan Punde initially filed a petition before the Additional Collector, Aurangabad, seeking the 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 Additional Collector allowed the application ex-parte on 27 July 1984. The Additional Commissioner remanded the case back to the Additional Collector, who then allowed the application of Kisan’s sons on 14 May 1988. The Additional Commissioner dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellants on 30 March 1989. The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants on 13 January 2005, holding that a mortgagee in possession cannot be termed as a “deemed tenant” under Section 5 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of Section 5 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, which defines a “tenant”. The High Court held that a mortgagee in possession cannot be considered a “deemed tenant” under this provision. The case also involves Section 10 of the Prevention of Agricultural Lands Alienation Act, 1939 and Section 103 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, which deal with the termination of mortgages and restoration of possession of agricultural lands.

The relevant legal provisions are:

• Section 5 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950: This section defines who is considered a “tenant” under the Act. The High Court interpreted this section to exclude mortgagees in possession from being considered tenants.
• Section 10 of the Prevention of Agricultural Lands Alienation Act, 1939: This section deals with the termination of mortgages of agricultural lands.
• Section 103 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950: This section is related to the restoration of possession of agricultural lands.

Arguments

The judgment does not explicitly detail the arguments made by each party before the Supreme Court. However, based on the High Court’s decision and the nature of the dispute, the arguments can be inferred:

• Appellants (Mortgagees): The appellants likely argued that they should be considered “deemed tenants” under the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, given their long possession of the land since 1942. They would have contended that they had rights over the land due to their continuous possession as mortgagees.
• Respondents (Original Landowners): The respondents, sons of Kisan Punde, would have argued that the mortgage should be terminated, and possession of the land should be restored to them. They would have relied on the provisions of the Prevention of Agricultural Lands Alienation Act, 1939, and the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, to support their claim. They would have also argued that the appellants cannot be considered “deemed tenants” under the law.

The innovativeness of the arguments cannot be ascertained as the arguments made before the Supreme Court have not been detailed in the judgment.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame any issues for determination in the judgment, as the matter was resolved through a compromise. However, the core issue before the High Court, which was the subject of the appeal, was whether the appellants, as mortgagees in possession, could be considered “deemed tenants” under Section 5 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The judgment does not cite any legal authorities or precedents.

Judgment

The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal based on a compromise reached between the parties. The parties, including the original landowners and various purchasers/intervenors, agreed to a distribution of the land as per the terms of a Memo of Compromise. The court directed the registry to draft a decree in terms of the compromise, which included a detailed allotment of land to each party. The court also directed the parties to cooperate in effecting the mutation of the land records and allowed the parties to register the decree with the Sub-Registrar.

The judgment did not discuss any authorities.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the amicable settlement reached between the parties. The court’s focus was on facilitating the compromise and ensuring that the terms of the agreement were implemented. The court did not delve into the merits of the legal arguments but rather focused on the practical resolution of the dispute through mutual agreement. The court’s emphasis on the compromise demonstrates a preference for resolving disputes through negotiated settlements rather than prolonged litigation.

The court’s decision was primarily based on the compromise reached by the parties. The court did not delve into the merits of the legal arguments but focused on the practical resolution of the dispute through mutual agreement.

The court’s reasoning is evident in the following quotes:

• “During the course of hearing, all parties concerned have negotiated the matter and have amicably settled the matter.”
• “The appeal is disposed of in terms of Memo of Compromise.”
• “The Registry is directed to draft a decree in terms of the Memo of Compromise effected between the parties.”

There were no majority or minority opinions as this was a unanimous decision.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court prioritized amicable settlement over prolonged litigation.
• The judgment highlights the importance of compromise in resolving long-standing land disputes.
• The court facilitated the implementation of the compromise by directing the drafting of a decree and mutation of land records.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the following:

• The Registry to draft a decree in terms of the Memo of Compromise.
• The terms of the Compromise and the maps showing the division of properties shall form part of the judgment and the decree.
• Parties to cooperate in effecting mutation by moving appropriate applications before the concerned authority.
• The concerned authority to take note of the compromise and effect mutation accordingly.
• The parties are at liberty to file the decree before the concerned Sub-Registrar for registration of the decree.

Development of Law

The judgment does not establish any new legal principles or change the existing position of law. The case was resolved based on a compromise, and the court did not delve into the legal issues. The ratio decidendi of the case is that disputes can be resolved through amicable settlements.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal based on a compromise reached between the parties. The court’s decision emphasized the importance of amicable settlements in resolving long-standing land disputes. The judgment provides a practical resolution to the specific dispute but does not set any new legal precedents.