Skip to content


Balambhat Ravjibhat Joshi Vs. Vinayak Ganpatrao Patvardhan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty;Civil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberSecond Appeal No. 230 of 1910
Judge
Reported in(1911)13BOMLR154
AppellantBalambhat Ravjibhat Joshi
RespondentVinayak Ganpatrao Patvardhan
Excerpt:
decree--execution--landlord and tenant--forfeiture clause in decree--relief against forfeiture--execution proceedings, relief granted in--courts of equity--practice. ;the principle that courts of equity will not forego their power to grant relief against forfeiture in the case of non-payment of rent where the relations of the parties are those of landlord and tenant merely on the ground that the agreement between them is embodied in a decree of the court, applies alike to a suit to enforce a decree and to proceeding in. execution.;krishnabai v. hari (1906) i.l.r. 31 bom 15 : 8 bom l.r. 813, explained. - .....relations of the parties are those of landlord and tenant, merely on the ground that the agreement between them is embodied in a decree of the court.2. we think that that ruling applies alike to a suit to enforce a decree and to proceeding in execution.3. upon the materials before us we think it is a case in which the court in the exercise of its discretion should have refused to award forfeiture in favour of the plaintiff having regard to the fact that he had already accepted payment of sums more than sufficient to discharge the obligations of the defendants under the decree.4. we set aside the decree of the lower court and dismiss the application of the judgment-creditor with costs throughout.
Judgment:

Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.

1. In this case we think that the Subordinate Judge with appellate powers was in error in thinking that the case of Krishndbai v. Hari ILR (1906) 31 Bom. 15 : 8 Bom. L.R. 813 is not in point. The ratio decidendi in that case is that Courts of equity will not forego their power to grant relief against forfeiture in the case of non-payment of rent where the relations of the parties are those of landlord and tenant, merely on the ground that the agreement between them is embodied in a decree of the Court.

2. We think that that ruling applies alike to a suit to enforce a decree and to proceeding in execution.

3. Upon the materials before us we think it is a case in which the Court in the exercise of its discretion should have refused to award forfeiture in favour of the plaintiff having regard to the fact that he had already accepted payment of sums more than sufficient to discharge the obligations of the defendants under the decree.

4. We set aside the decree of the lower Court and dismiss the application of the judgment-creditor with costs throughout.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //