Summarize the following court judgment. Appeal No. 1150 of 1978. From the Judgment and Order dated 22.9.1976 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Appln. No. 1544 of 1971. B. Datta	 J.P. Pathak and P.H.Parekh for the Appellant. A.M. Khanwilkar for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KANIA	 J. The facts found in this appeal show that the appellant	 Laxmi Bai	 was at the relevant time a member of a joint family with her son	 the partition pleaded by the appellant not having been accepted as genuine by the author ities concerned. She terminated the tenancy of the predeces sor in title of the respondents by a notice dated June 24	 1960. Under the provisions of Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act	 1948 (hereinafter re ferred to as "the said Act")	 April 1	 1957	 was declared as the tillers ' day and Section 32 of the said Act provided biter alia that the tenants of the land who fell within any of categories described in sub section (1) of the said section were deemed to have purchased the land held by them as tenants from their landlords	 free of all encumbrances subsisting thereon on the said day. The case of the appel lant is that	 in the present case	 the tillers ' day was postponed in view of the provisions of clause (a) of sub section (1) of Section 32 F of the said Act	 as she was a widow and hence	 it must be held that she had terminated the tenancy of tenant	 Dayanu	 the predecessor in title of the respondents before he became a deemed purchaser of the land. It is not possible to accept this contention in view of the proviso to sub section (1) of Section 32 F of the said Act which provides	 inter alia that the tillers ' day would not get postponed where the widow land owner is a member of a joint family	 one of the members whereof was outside the protected categories mentioned under clause (a) of sub section (1) of Section 32 F of the said Act. In the present case	 there is no dispute that the son of the appellant who was joint with her did not fall within any of the categories referred to in clause (a) of sub section (1) of Section 32 F of the said Act. In these circumstances	 Dayanu became the owner of the said land on the tillers ' day as a deemed predecessor and the appellant lost her rights in the said land. Notice given thereafter is of no avail. The appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. N.P.V Appeal dismissed.

The appellant	 was a member of a joint family with her son. She terminated the tenancy of the predecessor in title of the respondents	 by a notice dated June 24	 1960	 giving rise to litigation culminating in the appeal before this Court by the appellant	 on the question whether the tenant became deemed purchaser of the land in question	 in terms of Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act	 1948	 which had declared April 1	 1957 as the tillers ' day and that the tenants of the lands who fell within any of the categories described in sub section (1) were deemed to have purchased the land held by them as tenants from their land lords	 free from all encumbrances subsisting thereon on that day. It was contended that in view of the provisions of clause (a) of subsection (1) of Section 32F of the Act	 the tillers ' day was postponed in respect of the land in ques tion as the appellant was a widow	 and hence it must be declared that she had terminated the tenancy of the tenant before he became a deemed purchaser of the land. Dismissing the appeal	 this Court	 HELD: 1.1. The proviso to sub section (1) of Section 32F of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act	 1948	 provides inter alia that the tillers ' day would not get postponed where the widow land owner is a member of a joint family	 one of the members whereof was outside the protected categories mentioned under clause (a) of sub section (1) of Section 32F of the Act. [457 F] 1.2 In the instant case	 admittedly	 the son of the appellant who was joint with her did not fall within any of the categories referred to in clause (a) of sub section (1) of Section 32F of the Act. Hence the predecessor intitle of the respondents became the owner of the said land on the tillers ' day as a deemed purchaser and the appellant lost her rights in the said 457 land. Notice given thereafter is of no avail. [457 G]