NARAYAN RAMCHANDRA PATKAR Vs. GANGADHAR KESHAV MUSALE
LAWS(BOM)-1954-3-4
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on March 26,1954

NARAYAN RAMCHANDRA PATKAR Appellant
VERSUS
GANGADHAR KESHAV MUSALE Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

BHAGAT RAM VS. LILAWATI GALIB [LAWS(HPH)-1972-9-2] [REFERRED TO]
BAI MANUBEN VS. BHIMABHAI NAGARJI [LAWS(BOM)-1957-10-5] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This is a second appeal in execution, which raises a question of law, viz. whether the decree under execution requires registration. The circumstances giving rise to the darkhast out of which the appeal arises are shortly these:
(2.)On 15-12-1943, the appellants filed Suit No. 727 of 1943 against the respondent to recover possession of the property in suit, which is a field bearing Survey No. 2087, situate at Mouje Kutre in the Chiplun taluka of the Ratnagiri District. On 16-1-1945, the trial Court granted the appellants a decree for possession. From the decree made in the suit the respondent preferred an appeal in the District Court at Ratnagiri, and in the appeal there was a compromise between the parties on 25-2-1946. The compromise decree provides as follows: "The possession of the suit property, along with the cattle-shed of the appellant may be retained with the appellant up to the end of May 1950, on a condition to pay the rent of Re. one a year. After the expiry of the said period, the appellant to give possession of the suit property to the plaintiff No. 2 after removing his cattle-shed. If the appellant fails to give possession of the suit land as above, the plaintiff No. 2 do take possession of the suit land, removing the cattle-shed therein at the cost of the appellant by executing the decree of this Court. On this condition the appellant has left the contentions in his suit. The appellant do bear his costs of the two Courts and pay that of the pliaintiff-respondents.''
(3.)Pursuant to the decree in appeal the appellants started execution proceedings against the respondent by Darkhast No. 40 of 1951 and a warrant for possession was issued against the respondent, who, in answer, appeared and applied by Exh. 7 contending that the case was governed by the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, and that he was not liable to be evicted.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.