BAI HANIFA JUSAB Vs. MEMO DADA A GANI
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
BAI HANIFA JUSAB
MEMON DADA A.GANI
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) An important question regarding the revocability of licences arises in this second appeal filed by the appellant-defendant against the respondent-plaintiff from a judgment of the Assistant Judge Rajkot District at Gondal.
(2.) The appellant is the divorced wife of the respondent. There was one issue of the marriage between the respondent and appellant by name Mohammed Amin. In the year 1955 proceedings were started by the appellant for the maintenance of the minor Mohammed Amin. On July 3 1958 at an appellate stage in these proceedings an agreement was arrived at between the appellant and the respondent. Since a number of points arising in this second appeal revolve round this agreement it is necessary to refer to the terms of this agreement in some detail. This agreement is in the Gujarati language. This agreement is in the form of a writing addressed by the respondent to the appellant and the recital mentions that the terms of the agreement arrived at between the appellant and the respondent in settlement are as set out in the agreement. Clauses I to 4 of this agreement are as follows:- *** *** *** *** These relevant terms rendered into English would read as follows:-
(1) You are being kept for the purpose of looking after Mohommed Amin and for the purpose of doing household work. In consideration you will be given food which may be cooked in my kitchen and you will be given four pairs of ordinary clothes for wearing every year. (2) I have to give you a house in my deli for the purpose of sitting and Lying down. (3) You should not........or lie nor should you create any enmities. (4) Till I distribute my estate or make my will you have to stay with Mohommed Amin as written above here at Gondal. When I make a distribution and when I give anything to the share of Mohommed Amin I have to manage it during my lifetime and after my lifetime you have to carry on its management. This agreement thereafter goes on to record other terms regarding pay ment in the maintenance suit for bus-fare arrears etc. and records that a sum of Rs. 128-12-0 had been paid in cash to the appellant on that day for which she passed receipt. The last term of this agreement provides that whatever expenses the appellant may have incurred in connection with the maintenance suit for Mohammed Amin should be borne by the appellant and whatever expenses the respondent may have incurred should be borne by the respondent. In pursuance of this agreement the appellant was allowed to occupy one room in the house of the respondent to dine at the respondents kitchen and to do work in the household of the respondent and looked after Mohammed Amin. The respondent alleged that the appellant who was of a quarrelsome nature picked up quarrels and failed to look after Mohommed Amin as she was expected to do. In these circumstances on May 25 1959 the respondent addressed a notice to the appellant to vacate the room occupied by her and to hand over possession of the movables which the respondent had given to the appellant for use.
(3.) The appellant did not hand over possession of the room as required by the notice. In these circumstances on November 25 1959 the respondent filed a suit in the Court of the Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division ) Gondal being Civil Suit No. 266 of 1959 praying for possession of the room and also for the movable properties that the respondent had given to the appellant. The appellant filed her written statement contending that the plaintiff was not entitled to evict her from the room as the same was not given to her on any agreement of leave and licence. She further contended (on the assumption of a licence) that the respondent was not entitled to have her evicted so long as he did not make a will of his property or divided the property. She submitted that the respondents suit should be dismissed with costs.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.