LexBAI DOSABAI versus MATHURDAS GOVINDDAS AND 0RS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
8
c
D
E
F
G
}{
762
BAI DOSABAI
v.
MATHURDAS GOVINDDAS AND 0RS.
April 21, 1980
(R. S. SARKARIA AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.]
English doctrine of conversi.on, applicability to Fndfan
I.nw-Tran.~Jer
o~
Property Act. Section 54, ~ndian Trust Act, p. 94, Specific Relief Act, 1963,
Sections
12,
13,
16, 21-Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1916
Sections 15 and 21, Bombay Tend11cy and Agricultural Lands Act, 11pplicability
of,
The appellant Bai Dosabhai obtained two plot• of land in Survey Nos. 59
and 63 at Vastrapur from her father-in-law, Jehangirji~ by way of gift.
On:
February 25, 1946, Dosabhai executed a deed styled "a deed of lease" in favour
of Indu Prasad Dev Shankar Bhatt whose successors-in-interest are the respon-
dents to this appeal. The vital terms of the lease were : The lessee was en-
titled to pun:hase the land at any time within seven years by paying the stipu-
lated price of Rs. 1,29, 111-8-0 a fourth of which was
paid in
adV<lllCO.
Until the date of sale he was to pay certain stipulated rent. Two year's rent
was paid in advance but if the sale took place within two years of the deed,
the lessor would not be obliged to return a proportionate part of the advance
rent paid by him. If there was default in payment of rent and if _the default
continued even after three months• notice had been given or if the lessor failed
to pay the purchase price and get a sale deed executed in his favour, the lessor
was entitled to call upon the lessee, by giving three month&' notice, to pay the
purchase price and take a deed of sale in his favour. If the lessee failed to
comply with the notice the lessor was entitled to take possession of the land
alongwith the .structures thereon. After taking 'possession the lessor was bound
to sell the same by public auction at the cost and risk of the lessee. If, at the
auction, a price less than the stipulated price was fetched the lessee was bound
to make good the deficiency to the lessor. If, the price realised was more, -the
lessor was to pay the surplus to lessee. The amount of Rs. 32,277-14-0 paid
by the lessee to the lessor as advance of one· fourth of the consideration was
to be given credit to the lessor.
Since the lessee, in spite of three notices dated October, 25, 1950, :March 1~
1951 and June 19, 1952 issued by the lessor calling upon the lessee to pay the·
balance of price within three months , from the date of receipt of the notice,
failing which a suit would be instituted to recover possession of the property
and to sell it by public aution at the cost and risk of the lessee remained silent,
the lessor, on November 21, 1952 filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge
Senior Division Ahmedabad to recOver rent for the· period from January 2J,
1950 to January 22, 1953 .and for possession· as well as damages in lieu of rent
from January 22, 1953 onwards. The present plaintiff, the successor-in-interest
of the original lessee who was defendant No. 4 in the suit filed a written state-
ment pleading that he was a tenant as defined by the Bombay Tenancy and
Agriw!tural Lands Act 1948, that his possession could not be disturbed and
that the Civil Court bad no jurisdiction to pass a decree ifor possession or for
mesne profits,, This plea was based on the circumstance that an amendment
--t' ..
i
i
'\
OOSABAI V. MA THU RD AS
76-:l
which came into force on January 1, 1953 made the provisions of the Bombay
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, applicable to the suit lands. This Act,
however ceased to be· applicable to the suit lands on August 11, 1958, when
the suit lands came to be included within the limits of the Ahmedabad Munici-
pality. The suit filed by the lessor was decreed on December 30, 1955. In
execution of the decree obtained by her, the lessor obtained posse_ssion of the
lands on December 22, 1960.
Immediately on the lessor obtaining possession, the lessee on January, 16,
1961,. instituted the suit out of which the present appeal arose seeking (a) speci-
fic performance of the agreement dated February 25, 1940 by directing the
lessor-defendant to execute a sale deed in his favour after receiving from him
the balance of sale price of Rs. 96,833-10-0 and (b) in the alternative, to
direct the defendant to sell the land by public auction to retain a sum of
Rs. 96,833-10-0 out of the sale price and to pay the excess amount to the plain-
tiff. The first relief sought was subsequently given up. TheExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.