SHANKAR GOPINATH APTE versus GANGABAI HARIHARRAO PATWARDHAN

Citation: [1977] 1 S.C.R. 411 · Decided: 25-08-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

/ 
t 
.. 
SHANKAR GOPINATH APTE 
v. 
GANGABAI HARIHARRAO PATWARDHAN 
August 25, 1976 
4 11 
[Y. V. CHANDKACHUD, P. K. GOSWAMI AND A. C. GUPTA, JJ.] 
Transfer of Property Act (4 of 1882), s. 53A, Indian Easements Act (5 of 
1882), s. 60 (b), and Indian Contract Act (9 of 1872), s. 211-Scope of. 
Practrce and Procedure-High Court's d11ty to give reasons n·cn in cases of 
summary dismissal. 
The respondent executed a power of attorney in favour of the appellant, 
which ex-facie showed that it was to be effective for a period of one year and 
that it was executed to enable the appelhnt to manage the respondent's lands. 
The appellant immediately thereafter wrote a letter to the respondent agreeing to 
undertake the duties specified in the power of attorney and to pay her a sum of 
Rs. 2,000 annually from the income of the lands. He was. to retain the rest of 
the income as his "honorarium". The appella-nt then obtained possession of the 
lands from a person who was in unauthorised occupation, 1md continued in 
possession of the property from year to year paying at intervals, the agreed 
sum of Rs. 2,000. He then got his name entered in the record of rights as ,1 
tenant of the respondent, a·nd gave notice to the respondent that, being a 
tenant, he had acquired a statutory right to purchase the lands under the 
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. 
The respondent thereupon filed a 
suit for the recovery of the amount that may be found due to her from the 
appellant on taking accounts, and for an injunction restraining the appell&nt 
from obstructing her in the enjoyment of the property. Alternatively, she pray• 
ed for a decree for possession of the lands. 
As the Civil Cpurt had no jurisdiction to decide the respondent's claim be-
cause of the appellant's claim to be her tenant, the issue of tenancy was refer-
red to the Tehsildar under s. 85-A of the Bombay Tenancy Act. 
The proceed-
ings under this section came to an end after the appellant carried his contention 
unsuccessfully from the Tehsildar to the Supreme Court. The appellant then 
sought to amend his written statement by incorporating the plea that he was in 
possession of the lands, in part performance of an agreement of sale between 
himself and the respondent, and that therefore he was entitled to defend his 
possession under s. 53-A, Transfer of Property Act, but the a·pplication for 
amendment was rejected. The suit was then decreed giving possession of the 
lands to the respondent with a direction to the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 4390 
to the respondent. 
The appeal to the High Court was dismissed summarily. 
In appeal to this Court, it was contended. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
( 1) that the power of attorney executed by the respondent in favour of the 
appellant was a sham and colourable clocument, its real object being to put the 
appellant in possession as a potential purchaser, and that therefore s. 53-A 
G 
Transfer of Property Act is applicable, 
(2) that the appellant must, in any event, be deemed to be a licensee of 
the respondent protected under s. 60(b), Easements Act, 1882, since he had 
executed works of a permanent cha·racter on the lands involving heavy expen-
ses; 
(3) that possession of the lands should not have been awarded to the res-
pondent along with its valuable improvements without compensating the appel-
lant for their value; and 
( 4) that the decree for Rs. 4390 should not have been passed as there was 
no question of a-ccountability. 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
412 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1977] 1 S.C.R. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : (I) In matters involving construction of written instruments where 
riyal interpretations have more than mere plausibility, the High Court ought to 
give a brief statement of reasons even while dismissing the appeal summarily. 
In the instant case, the High Court had called for the record to verify whether 
the decree of the trial court was legal and proper. Therefore, a brief statement 
of reasons should have been given by the High Court saving the Supreme Court 
from considering the pleading and evidence for itself. 
[ 415 D· E] 
(2) The appellant is not entitled to protect his possession under s. 53-A, 
Transfer of Property Act. [415 GJ 
(a) The application for amendment of his written statement was belated; 
[415 G] 
(b) the conditions of the section were not satisfied. 
[416 DJ 
(i) There was no written contract a.t all as required by the section. A letter 
written by the respondent's bro

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.