Skip to content


Jagannath Deokaran Marwadi Vs. Dhondu Ananda Kunbi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Extraordinary Application No. 320 of 1922, Suit No. 2 of 1922
Judge
Reported inAIR1924Bom352; (1924)26BOMLR265
AppellantJagannath Deokaran Marwadi
RespondentDhondu Ananda Kunbi
Excerpt:
.....been referred to a civil court. however complicated a question may appear to be he is entitled to go into it in order to determine whether possession could be given to one party or the other. - - we think, therefore, although we are averse to interfere with the decision of the revenue authorities in a suit of this character, that when they have clearly exceeded the powers granted under the act, we should interfere in the ends of justice......determined by the civil court. however complicated the questions may appear to be, he is entitled to give possession to one party or the other. that is entirely within his jurisdiction there is nothing improper or illegal in such an order. we think, therefore, although we are averse to interfere with the decision of the revenue authorities in a suit of this character, that when they have clearly exceeded the powers granted under the act, we should interfere in the ends of justice. the rule is made absolute and the order of the mamlatdar restored with costs.
Judgment:

Norman Macleod, C.J.

1. In this case the Collector acting under the powers given under Section 15 of the Bombay Mamlatdars' Courts Act (Bom. Act II of 1906 set aside an order made by the Mamlatdar in favour of the plaintiff in Vahivat Suit No. 2 of 1922. The Collector can only set aside such an order if he considers that it is illegal or improper. The ground on which the Collector set aside the order, according to the judgment, was that the Mamlatdar had entered upon complicated questions which were entirely outside the province of the Act, and which ought to have been referred to a civil Court. If that decision were to stand, then it practically deprives the Mamlatdars of the power to decide who should be in possession of the disputed property until the questions in dispute have been finally determined by the civil Court. However complicated the questions may appear to be, he is entitled to give possession to one party or the other. That is entirely within his jurisdiction There is nothing improper or illegal in such an order. We think, therefore, although we are averse to interfere with the decision of the Revenue authorities in a suit of this character, that when they have clearly exceeded the powers granted under the Act, we should interfere in the ends of justice. The rule is made absolute and the order of the Mamlatdar restored with costs.


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