Skip to content


Ramchandra Shivjiram Vs. Tama Ragho Manglya - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case Number Second Appeal No. 94 of 1911
Judge
Reported in(1912)14BOMLR390
AppellantRamchandra Shivjiram
RespondentTama Ragho Manglya
Excerpt:
.....that the plaintiff could only recover as for use and occupation for the two years of the tenancy admitted; and that she could recover the amount claimed by her, as it was shown on evidence not to be excessive. - section 31(4) (since repealed) :[tarun chatterjee & h.l.dattu, jj] jurisdiction of high court - respondent, a government company, chartered appellants vessel to carry rock phosphate from togo to west coast india - dispute arose between parties - under agreement, respondent had chosen mumbai as port of delivery vessel carrying rock phosphate was delivered at port of bombay - application filed by respondent earlier before delhi high court for appointment of certain individual as arbitrator had become infructuous because of his demise held, high court of bombay, is not..........of immoveable property from year to year, or for any ! term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent, can be made only by a registered instrument ', the respondent could ' not be allowed to rely on the lease set up by her, because it was not registered: ardesir bejonj'i surti v. syed sirdar ali khan ilr(1908). 33 bom. 610. nor could she be allowed to give oral evidence of that lease (s. 91 of the indian evidence act).4. but the appellants having admitted in their written statement the ownership of the respondent and that they were in as her tenants, proof of the relation of landlord and tenant became unnecessary. ' a court in general has to try the questions on which the parties are at issue, not those on which they are agreed;' and ' admissions which have been deliberately.....
Judgment:

Chandavarkar, J.

1. The plaintiff (who is respondent in this second appeal) alleged in her plaint that the salt-pan in dispute in which she had interest to the extent of one-third had been leased away during her minority to the appellants for a period of three years on a rental of Rs. 500 a year by her guardians and one Dharman, who owned the remaining two-thirds share; that, on the expiry of that period, she, having obtained the age of majority, let her interest for two years to the appellants on a rental of Rs. 1,000 a year. She sought to recover the rent of those two years at that rate and also Rs. 653 as rent due on the previous lease.

2. The appellants in their written statement admitted the respondent's ownership of the salt-pan and also their tenancy under her and Dharman, but they contended that they had been in possession from the beginning under a lease for five years, not three years, as alleged in the plaint.

3. Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act requiring that ' a lease of immoveable property from year to year, or for any ! term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent, can be made only by a registered instrument ', the respondent could ' not be allowed to rely on the lease set up by her, because it was not registered: Ardesir Bejonj'i Surti v. Syed Sirdar Ali Khan ILR(1908). 33 Bom. 610. Nor could she be allowed to give oral evidence of that lease (s. 91 of the Indian Evidence Act).

4. But the appellants having admitted in their written statement the ownership of the respondent and that they were in as her tenants, proof of the relation of landlord and tenant became unnecessary. ' A Court in general has to try the questions on which the parties are at issue, not those on which they are agreed;' and ' admissions which have been deliberately made for the purposes of the suit, whether in the pleading or by agreement, will act as an estoppel to the admission of any evidence contradicting them.' Burjorji Cursetji Panthaki v. Muncherji Kuverji ILR (1880) 5 Bom. 143.

5. The only question, then, at issue, was the amount of rent payable. So far as the agreement set up by either party was concerned, it was inadmissible in evidence and no oral evidence could be given of it. The respondent could only recover as for use and occupation for the two years of the tenancy admitted.

6. We have evidence in the case to show that at the beginning of the two years' tenancy, admitted by the appellants, one merchant was ready to take the salt-pan on a higher rent than Rs. 5000, which they had paid till then; that another merchant was willing to pay a rent of Rs. 7000 per annum; and that the appellants were paying at the date of the suit Rs. 6100. The lower appellate Court has believed this evidence, and the rent claimed in the plaint and awarded by that Court cannot be regarded as excessive for the appellants' use and occupation of the salt-pan.

7. Two other points were urged before us in support of the appeal-one that the lease of the salt-pan was illegal because it had not the sanction of the Collector of Salt Revenue, and the other that the report of the guardians of the plaintiff made to the District Judge was inadmissible. We agree with the lower Courts that the lease was not illegal, and that the report was admissible.

8. The decree is confirmed with costs.

Batchelor, J.

9. I agree. In my opinion the receipts issued by the plaintiff for payments made to her were rightly admitted in evidence, and, if that is so, the decree under appeal must be affirmed. It seems to me that these receipts are admissible, not as proving the terms of the contract of letting, but as proving from the conduct of the parties, what would be a fair rent for the admitted tenancy. Reference may also be made to illustration (e) of Section 91, Evidence Act.


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