Bar on Testamentary Disposition of Tenanted Land – Protection of Possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act – Appreciation of Oral and Documentary Evidence – Injunction and Declaration of Title – Relevance of Admissions in Evidence

Case Note & Summary

Statutory Bar under Section 43 Upheld – Held that testamentary disposition of tenanted land was barred, and the Will relied upon by the defendants was invalid. (Para 22, 23, 26)

No Substantial Question of Law Existed – Held that findings on possession were supported by evidence, and stray admissions could not override concurrent factual determinations. (Para 20, 31, 32)

Doctrine of Part Performance Rejected – Held that there was no proof of a valid contract, payment of consideration, or possession in furtherance of an agreement. (Para 25, 27, 28)

Reappreciation of Evidence Not Permitted in Second Appeal – Held that there was no perversity or illegality in concurrent findings. (Para 32, 33)

Second Appeal Dismissed. Judgments and Decrees of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court Confirmed. No Costs Awarded

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Section 100 – Second Appeal & Substantial Question of LawMaharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 – Section 43 – Bar on Transfer of Tenanted LandTransfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 53A – Doctrine of Part PerformanceIndian Contract Act, 1872 – Section 23 – Legality of Agreements Contravening Statutory Provisions

Second Appeal – Bar on Testamentary Disposition – Tenant Purchaser – Transfer by Will – Injunction – Declaration of Title – Doctrine of Part Performance – Admissibility of Possession Receipt – Validity of Sale Agreement – Concurrent Findings – Reappreciation of Evidence – Substantial Question of Law – Perversity in Findings

a) Whether there was a statutory bar under Section 43 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, on the transfer of tenanted land by Will? (Para 3, 22, 23)b) Whether the findings of both Courts regarding possession of the plaintiffs over the eastern side of the suit property were perverse due to alleged admissions in oral evidence? (Para 4, 20, 32)

a) A contract for sale of tenanted land was not void but required prior sanction under Section 43 at the stage of conveyance, not agreement. (Para 23, 26)b) Doctrine of Part Performance under Section 53A did not protect possession unless there was proof of a valid contract, payment of consideration, and possession in furtherance of the contract. (Para 27, 28)c) A stray admission in cross-examination could not be treated as overriding substantive oral and documentary evidence. (Para 20, 31)