Skip to content


Bhutia Dhondu Vs. Ambo and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1889)ILR13Bom294
AppellantBhutia Dhondu
RespondentAmbo and ors.
Excerpt:
.....right to the land, so as to confer a good title on the plaintiff, we think that, looking at the only issue raised by the judge in appeal, it could not have been intended to call it in.....charles sargent, c.j.1. we think that the rajinama passed by pos patil assuming it to be proved, operated as a surrender or relinquishment, to use the language of section 74 of the land revenue act of 1879. no particular words are essential to make a good surrender. see woodfall on landlord and tenant, p. 298. the language of this rajinama shows, we think, a clear intention to give up the right of cultivation which he and his father had enjoyed up to that time. the judge seems to think that it was not acted on by the inamdar, because he took the rent for 1883 and 1884 from ambo, and because ambo remained in possession in 1884 and 1889; but the rent was, we may assume, what was due in december, 1883, after the monsoon, and by the rajinama itself the inamdar is authorized to receive it. the.....
Judgment:

Charles Sargent, C.J.

1. We think that the rajinama passed by Pos Patil assuming it to be proved, operated as a surrender or relinquishment, to use the language of Section 74 of the Land Revenue Act of 1879. No particular words are essential to make a good surrender. See Woodfall on Landlord and Tenant, p. 298. The language of this rajinama shows, we think, a clear intention to give up the right of cultivation which he and his father had enjoyed up to that time. The Judge seems to think that it was not acted on by the inamdar, because he took the rent for 1883 and 1884 from Ambo, and because Ambo remained in possession in 1884 and 1889; but the rent was, we may assume, what was due in December, 1883, after the monsoon, and by the rajinama itself the inamdar is authorized to receive it. The act that Ambo, a sub-tenant of the recognized occupant, remained in possession after the rajinama was passed, is no proof that it was not accepted by the inamdar.

2. As to the plaintiff's right to sue in ejectment, the Judge seems to think it is doubtful, as he had not been put in possession; but the owner of an 'interesse termini',--as such an interest is designated at Common Law in England,--is entitled to bring ejectment. See Cole on Ejectment, pp. 72 and 287.

3. It has been said, however, that there is no finding that the rajinama is proved. It was produced after the issues were raised in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, but was proved by the receiver to have been passed to him, and Pos Patil was not put into the witness box to deny it, nor was any application made in the Court of appeal to give evidence on the subject. We think, therefore, that we must regard it as proved.

4. As to the inamdar's right to the land, so as to confer a good title on the plaintiff, we think that, looking at the only issue raised by the Judge in appeal, it could not have been intended to call it in question. Upon the whole, we must reverse the decree of the Court below and substitute that of the Subordinate Judge, with costs on the defendant in this and the Court below.


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