SHETH MANEKLAL MANSUKHBHAI versus MESSRS. HORMUSJI JAMSHEDJI GINWALLA AND SONS.

Citation: [1950] 1 S.C.R. 75 · Decided: 21-03-1950 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
75 
SHETH MANEKLAL MANSUKHBHAI 
v. 
MESSRS. HORMUSJI JAMSHEDJI GINWALLA 
AND SONS. 
[SAIYID F AZL ALI, MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN and 
MUKHERJEA JJ.] 
Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), s. 58-A-Agreement to 
lease evidenced by co1·respondence-Lessee put in possession-Accep-
tance of rent for several years-No regiatered lease deed-Suit for 
ejectment of lessee as trespasser-Maintainability-Doctrine of part-
performance. 
The predecessor in interest of the defendant, behig desirous 
of putti~ up a factory in certain plots of land situated within 
a Taluqdari estate which was under the management of the 
Government under the Gujarat, Taluq<lars Act, 1888, applied in 
writing to the Taluqdari Settlement Officer for a perm1.uent lease 
of the plots. The Taluqdari Officer agreed to grant a lease on 
certain tar.ms subject to the sanction of the Government and 
forwarded a letter to the Government stating the offer to take 
the plots on lease, his provisional acceptance of the slime sub- . 
ject to the sanction of the Government and the terms of the 
lease and by a Resolution dated 5th September, 1917, the 
Government granted the sanction. 
The defendant's predecessor 
was put in possession and though a formal lease deed was not 
executed and 
registered, the Taluqdari Officer and after the 
release of the estate by the Government, the agent of the 
taluqdar, and the plaintiffs who came in as ijaradars. continued 
to receive the agreed rent up to 1932. 
In 1933 the plaintiffs 
instituted a suit to eject the defendant alleging that be was a 
mere trespasser as there was no registered lease deed : 
lield, that the correspondence which passed between 
the 
defendant's predecessor-in-title and the Taluqdari 
Officer, 
the 
Jetter sent by the latter to the Government, and the Resolution 
of tbe Government dated 5th September, 1917, proved that there 
was a contract in writing to grant a lease on the terms stated 
in the Taluqdari Officer's letter, and as the defenda-nt's predeces-
sor wa~ put in possession in furtherance of this contract and the 
rents agreed upon were accepted for several years, s. 53-A of 
the Transfer of Property Act was applicable to the case and the 
plaintiffa were not entitled to eject the defendant. 
Judgment of tbe Bombay High Court reversed. 
19150 
March ~l. 
76 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1950] 
19.'50 
APPEAL from the High Court of Judicature at Bom-
Sheu. M""'lrlal bay: Appeal No. XXXVII of 1949. 
Man:sukhbhai 
This was an appeal from a judgment and decree of 
•· n 
the Bombay High Court dated 9th March, 1943, in 
M~~sJrs. hord· .. Second Appeal No. 717 of 1940, varying the decree of 
musi• ams e 'J• 
h A · 
J d 
Ah 
d b d · 
GillwaUa and 
t e ss1stant u ge, 
me a a , m Appeal No. 173 
sons. 
of 1936 reversing the decree of the joint Sub-Judge, 
Ahmedabad, in Suit No. 830 of 1933. 
R.J. Thakur, for the appellant. 
Nanak Ohand Pandit, (Diwan Oharanjit Lal, with 
him), for the respondents. 
1950. March 21. The judgment of the Court was de-
Iiver.ed by 
Mahajan}. 
MAHAJAN J.-This is an appeal from the judgment 
and decree of the High Court of Bombay dated 9th March 
1943, and made in Second Appeal No. 717of1940 vary-
ing the decree of the Assjstant Judge, Ahmedabad, in 
Appeal No. 173 of 1936 reversing the decree of the 
Joint Sub-Judge, Ahmedabad, in Suit No. 830 of 1933. 
The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed by 
the respondent firm in ejectment to recover possession 
of survey Nos. 222, 223, 225 and 226 situate in 
Rampura in Ahmadabad district and for mesne profits, 
as early as July, 1933, and during its 17 years' span of 
life it had a somewhat chequered career. Those res-
ponsible for drawing up the pleadings did not take 
pains to comprehend correctly as to what they were 
about and the whole litigation was conducted in a 
slovenly and slipshod manner. Evidence which 
should have been produced at the beginning was allow-
ed to be produced at a much later stage after the case 
went back on remand and the suit was determined by 
the Assistant Judge on fresh issues and fresh materials. 
It was in this confused state of the record that it vrns 
eventually decided by the High Court and its judg-
ment is by no means satisfactory. The long time 
take in deciding the suit which involved determina-
tion of a few simple issues is such as is calculated to 
bring into ridicule the administration of justice. 
• 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
77 
. There is a talukdari 

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