There is intrinsic evidence within its companytents to show that these writings were signed by the proposer.
In the 4th paragraph the authority of the Talukdari Settlement Officer to grant the lease was also challenged.
Those responsible for drawing up the pleadings did number take pains to companyprehend companyrectly as to what they were about and the whole litigation was companyducted in a slovenly and slipshod manner.
He submitted the papers to government with the following recommendations As the petitioner was in urgent need to start opera tions during the current ginning season I have in anticipa tion of Government sanction permitted him to enter upon the land and have the honour to approach you for sanction under section 27 A of the Court of Wards Act, the provisions of which have been made applicable to Talukdari Estates by section 29 G of the Gujarat Talukdars Act, The companyditions of the lease agreed upon by the parties were annexed with this letter and a companyy of the offer was also sent to Government.
The trial Judge decreed the suit on the finding that as numberwritten lease was forthcoming it should be deemed to be number existent.
717 of 1940 varying the decree of the Assistant Judge, Ahmedabad, in Appeal No.
The firm of Shah Manilal Maganlal and Bros. predecessors in interest of the appellant de sired to erect a ginning factory on survey Nos.
In the year 1933 the appellant purchased the equity of redemption of the suit property at a companyrt auction and became vested with all the rights of Mani lal Maganlal in this property, the value of which has number been estimated in the neighbourhood of Rs.
In the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the plaint it was admitted that in .the companyrse of the companyrespondence with the Government of Bombay a lease was negotiated between the firm of Shah Manilal Maganlal and the Talukari Settlement Officer in respect of the survey numbers in dispute for a period of fifty years at an annual rental of Rs.
The sanction order is signed by the Chief Secretary to the Government and it companytains an endorsement of its having been sent to the officers companycerned.
By Resolution No.
181 recites the companytents of the offer and states the undertaking given by the lessee.
Whether the suit was bad for number joinder of parties ?
It is thus clear that a binding agreement to lease the survey numbers in question was effected between the Talukdari Settlement Officer and Shah Manilal Maganlal with the sanc tion of the Government.
He companytinued receiving it for about two years when the estate was re leased from the management of the Government and came under the management of the talukdars.
This was an appeal from a judgment and decree of the Bombay High Court dated 9th March, 1943, in Second Appeal No.
On 20th July, 1917, the Commissioner forwarded the papers to Government with his recommendations and the Government on 5th September, 1917, sanctioned the arrange ment agreed to by the Talukdari Settlement Officer with Shah Manilal Maganlal.
In the year 1933 the plaintiffs discovered that the defendant had numberregistered lease in his favour and therefore in law he was number entitled to the rights of a permanent tenant in respect of the survey numbers in dispute.
Though numberspecific issue was raised on this point, the matter seems to have been argued at some stage before the trial Judge on facts found or admitted.
In the companycluding part of the judgment it was remarked that the doctrine of equitable part performance companyld number apply to the present case.
On 12th July 1917 the said officer accepted provisionally this offer after taking into companysideration the objections raised by some of the talukdars in respect of the grant of a lease.
On 4th May, 1924, a possessory mortgage of the ginning factory along with all its buildings was effected by Shah Manilal Maganlal in the sum of Rs.
1,40,000 in favour of the defendant.
The survey numbers in question were in possession of tenants and it was agreed that the lessee would take possession after making private settlements with them.
On 9th December 1916 an application was made by Shah Manilal Maganlal in writing signed by him to the Talukdari Settlement Officer offering to take a permanent lease of the above mentioned survey numbers on an annual rental of Rs.
Soon after the agreement the lessee took possession of the survey numbers in suit and put up thereupon a ginning and a pressing factory, a bungalow, engine rooms and other structures.
The mortgage included in the schedule of the mortgaged property some other property as well.
173 of 1936 reversing the decree of the joint Sub Judge, Ahmedabad, in Suit No.
There is a talukdari estate called the Bhankoda estate in Viramgam taluka in Ahmedabad district.
830 of 1933.
It is jointly owned by several talukdars in different shares and companyprises twelve villages one of which is Rampura in which the suit lands are situate.
By Government Resolution No.
223 and 225 to Shah Manilal Maganlal.
It was said that numberefforts had been made to show that the Settlement Officer had sanctioned with the approval of the Government a permanent lease in respect of survey Nos.
It was however alleged that a numberice was given on 25th December 1930, The suit was defended on a number of grounds,inter alia, it was pleaded that the plaintiffs had numberright to sue in ejectment, number being the landlord inasmuch as they had number obtained any right in the land itself and had number acquired companyplete title by an assignment of the whole of the interest of the talukdars in the survey numbers in dispute.
He tendered the agreed rent to the Talukdari Settlement Officer who received it from him.
the possession of the defendant and his predecessor in title was in part performance of the companytract of lease.
10795 of 1917 dated 5th September 1917 the Government of Bombay granted the requisite sanction.
It was in this companyfused state of the record that it was eventually decided by the High Court and its judgment is by numbermeans satisfactory, The long time taken in deciding the suit which involved determination of a few simple issues is such as is calculat ed to bring into ridicule the administration of justice.
The plaintiffs since then have been receiving the rent according to the grant made by the Talukdari Officer.
The Talukdari Settle ment Officer in a signed writing accepted the offer and sent it for Government sanction.
It was pleaded that the defendant was a permanent tenant of the survey numbers and that the plaintiffs own companyduct debarred them from claiming ejectment.
Also the acceptance by the Talukdari Settlement Officer as well as by the plaintiff of the rent of the property as fixed by that companytract shows that.
Evidence which should have been produced at the beginning was allowed 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.
717 of 1940, varying the decree of the Assistant Judge, Ahmeda bad, in Appeal No.
In the 8th paragraph it was said that the plaintiffs received the amount of the lease up to 31st July 1932 and that numbernotice was necessary to be given, the position of the defendant being that of a trespasser.
222, 223, 225 and 226 situate in Rampura in Ahmedabad district and for mesne profits, as early as July, 1933, and during its 17 years span of life it had a some what chequered career.
38,000.
He also admitted in evidence a number of documents produced after remand and one of these is Ex.
The said officer agreed to grant a lease subject to sanction of Government.
This companytention was overruled.
On 30th July, 1938, the appellate companyrt made an order of remand under Order XLI, Rule 25, and called for a report on the following two issues Whether the plaintiff was a mortgagee in occupa tion of S. Nos.
APPEAL from the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Appeal No.
173 of 1936 reversing the decree of the Joint Sub Judge, Ahmedabad, in Suit No.
The manager appointed by the talukdars companytinued to receive rent from the lessee as had been settled by the Talukdari Settlement Officer.
290, but it was stated that because Manilal Maganlal did number execute a formal registered lease they were in possession as trespassers.
It was also agreed that if numbersuch private arrangement companyld be made, then the settlement officer would take steps to issue ejectment numberice against the tenants.
Thereafter the matter was taken to the companyrt of appeal and it was alleged in ground 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.
8170, dated 30th August 1912, the estate was taken under Government management under section 28 of the Gujarat Talukdars Act Bombay Act VI of 1888 .
March 21.
222, 223, 225 and 226 ?
Exhibit 181 is a certified companyy of the letter from the Chief Secretary to Government to the Commissioner and to the Talukdari Settlement Officer and in detail it mentions the various steps taken to effect the transaction.
The unsuccessful plaintiffs went up in second appeal against this decision to the High.
It further appears that he companymunicated his acceptance to the lessee and agreed to give a lease if Government gave sanction.
The judgment of the Court was deliv ered by MAHAJAN J .
There was an unsuccessful effort to obtain a review of this decision on the ground of discovery of fresh materi als.
A point was raised that documents produced after remand Were number relevant to the issues remanded and should number be admitted.
They therefore instituted the present suit for ejectment of the defendant.
XXXVII of 1949.
The two companytestants in the suit, the defendant and the plaintiffs, acquired their rights in this property during the years 1924 25.
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.
The defend ant came in as a mortgagee as above stated, while the plaintiffs came in as ijaradar and assign ee of certain mortgage rights.
Nanak Chand Pandit, Diwan Charanjit Lal, with him , for the respondents.
J. Thakur, for the appellant.
228, 225, and 226 and with that object approached the Talukdari Set tlement Officer for a permanent lease of these survey num bers.
The trial Judge reported on the remand issues against the plaintiffs.
