Skip to content


Fatmabibi BudruddIn Vs. Ganesh Ballal Joglekar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberFirst Appeal No. 76 of 1906
Judge
Reported in(1907)9BOMLR917
AppellantFatmabibi Budruddin
RespondentGanesh Ballal Joglekar
Excerpt:
dekkhan agriculturists belief act (xvii of 1879), sections 12, 13 and 71 a-restropective effect-enactment relating to procedure-construction of statutes.;sections 13 and 71 a of the dekkhan agriculturists' belief act, 1879, do not apply to suits instituted before the act came into force in the particular district in which the suits are instituted.;section 12 of the act must be allowed a retrospective effect only in so far as it regulates the procedure of the court. the portion of the section 'and, secondly with a view to taking an account b3twcen such parties in manner heroin after provided' must be denied a retrospective effect.;pannalal v. kalu (1904) 8 bom. l.r. 798 approved. - .....decision is whether sections 12, 13 and 71 a of the dekkhan agriculturists' relief act apply to suits instituted before that act came into force in the particular district in which the suits arc instituted.2. we are of opinion that sections 13 and 71 a have no such application and that section 12 must be allowed retrospective effect only in so far as it regulates the procedure of the court. to obviate the possibility of misunderstanding, we add that in this view of the law it appears to us advisable to specify the last sixteen words of the main paragraph of the section, 'and secondly, with a view to taking an account between such parties in manner hereinafter provided' as the particular passage to which retrospective effect must be denied.3. in this connection we invite attention to.....
Judgment:

1. The question submitted for our decision is whether Sections 12, 13 and 71 A of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act apply to suits instituted before that Act came into force in the particular district in which the suits arc instituted.

2. We are of opinion that Sections 13 and 71 A have no such application and that Section 12 must be allowed retrospective effect only in so far as it regulates the procedure of the Court. To obviate the possibility of misunderstanding, we add that in this view of the law it appears to us advisable to specify the last sixteen words of the main paragraph of the section, 'And secondly, with a view to taking an account between such parties in manner hereinafter provided' as the particular passage to which retrospective effect must be denied.

3. In this connection we invite attention to the recent ruling of a Division Bench of this Court in Pannalal v. Kalu : (1906)8BOMLR798 which we read as indicating a similar construction of the law.


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