AMBADAS SITARAM MORE vs MURLIDHAR DIGAMBER

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, which ruled that the tenant was not entitled to purchase the land under Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, due to the tenant's possession exceeding the ceiling limits established by both the Tenancy Act and the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961. The Court found that the partition of the tenant's family was a device to circumvent these laws, thus affirming the Tribunal's findings. The appeal was dismissed, confirming the Tribunal's order that the tenant could not purchase the land in question.