Skip to content


Balubhai Vijbhukhandas Vs. the Secretary of State for India - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberFirst Appeal No. 234 of 1917
Judge
Reported in(1920)22BOMLR785; 57Ind.Cas.538
AppellantBalubhai Vijbhukhandas
RespondentThe Secretary of State for India
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
letter-accompaniments to the letter -ownership-in accompaniments.;the plaintiffs sent to the defendant a notice of suit, under section 80 of the civil procedure code, 1908, accompanied by a private copy of their sanad and a certified copy of an extract from city survey records. the plaintiffs having claimed to recover the accompaniments from the defendant :-; dismissing the claim, that when the plaintiffs wrote to the defendant enclosing the copies they did not retain any property in them, unless they expressly asked in their letter that the copies should be returned to them. - - the district judge dismissed the suit, and we think that that decision was perfectly correct......certified copy which had been supplied to them by the survey office on the 22nd november 1912. the notice of suit was sent on the 11th february 1916. on the 7th of june 1916, plaintiffs applied for the return of these two copies,' and were referred by the under-secretary to government to the collector of surat. that officer, on the 24th june 1916, declined to return the two documents on the ground that they were accompaniments to the notice. the plaintiffs then served notice on the 5th october 1916 that they would file this suit claiming return of these two documents. the district judge dismissed the suit, and we think that that decision was perfectly correct. it appears to us a most extraordinary claim, since when a party writes to government or to any other person enclosing copies of.....
Judgment:

Norman Maclaod, Kt., C.J.

1. This suit which was filed by the plaintiffs against the Secretary of State for India in Council was one of a very peculiar nature. The plaintiffs had sued the Surat Municipality and the Deputy Collector, the cause of action being an alleged illegal removal of the plaintiffs1 otta, from their house in Surat. Then the plaintiffs served a notice of the suit against the Secretary of State for damages for the tort committed by the defendant's servant, the Deputy Collector, With that notice the plaintiffs sent two documents, one being a typewritten copy of their Sanad or titles-deed with regard to the house in question which was prepared by their pleader; and the second a certified copy which had been supplied to them by the Survey Office on the 22nd November 1912. The notice of suit was sent on the 11th February 1916. On the 7th of June 1916, plaintiffs applied for the return of these two copies,' and were referred by the Under-Secretary to Government to the Collector of Surat. That officer, on the 24th June 1916, declined to return the two documents on the ground that they were accompaniments to the notice. The plaintiffs then served notice on the 5th October 1916 that they would file this suit claiming return of these two documents. The District Judge dismissed the suit, and we think that that decision was perfectly correct. It appears to us a most extraordinary claim, since when a party writes to Government or to any other person enclosing copies of certain documents, he does not retain-any property in these documents, unless he expressly asks in his letter that those documents should be returned to him. If he does not do so, the copies annexed to a letter are part of the letter and the property in them, remains with the persons to whom they were sent. Th e appeal in this Court has not been pressed, and is, therefore, dismissed with costs. First Appeal No. 225 of 1917 is dismissed with coats.


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