Skip to content


Patel Ambaram Kuberdas Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1923Bom416; 74Ind.Cas.196
AppellantPatel Ambaram Kuberdas
RespondentThe Secretary of State for India in Council
Excerpt:
bombay revenue jurisdiction act (x of 1876), section 11 - bombay land revenue code (act v of--appeal, failure to prefer--declaration, suit for, maintainability of. - indian penal code, 1860 [c.a. no. 45/1860].sections 124-a, 153-a, 153-b, 292, 293 & 295a; [f.i. rebello, smt v.k. tahilramani & a.s. oka, jj] declaration as to forfeiture of book held, the power can be exercised only if the government forms opinion that said publication contains matter which is an offence under either of sections 124-a, 153-a, 153-b, 292, 293, 295a of i.p.c., - therefore, the application had held a right for the said land and asked for a sanad in respect of the same could not hold good because the land, was government laud. section 11 of the revenue jurisdiction act clearly prevents us from..........because the land, was government laud. that refusal to grant a sanad was the cause of action on which the plaintiff relies when he filed this suit.2. it is also clear from the notice he gave to the secretary of state under section 80 of the civil procedure code, that the notice was given because his application -to the collector had been rejected. the plaintiff could have appealed under section 203 of the land revenue code but he omitted to do so. section 11 of the revenue jurisdiction act clearly prevents us from entertaining any suit on account of the collector's refusal to grant the plaintiff a sanad, as the plaintiff had to prove that, previously to filing this suit, he had presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force, as within the period of.....
Judgment:

1. We think the District Judge was right in holding that the suit was barred under Section 11 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, X of 1876. The laintiff having purchased certain property from one Kasam Punja made an application to the Collector, which must have been due to the fact that he could not get possession of the property which he thought he had purchased. The Collector replied that as Kasam Punja, the plaintiff's vendor, had not proved his ownership at the time of the Suburban Survey inquiry, it washeld to be Government land. Therefore, the application had held a right for the said land and asked for a sanad in respect of the same could not hold good because the land, was Government laud. That refusal to grant a sanad was the cause of action on which the plaintiff relies when he filed this suit.

2. It is also clear from the notice he gave to the Secretary of State under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code, that the notice was given because his application -to the Collector had been rejected. The plaintiff could have appealed under Section 203 of the Land Revenue Code but he omitted to do so. Section 11 of the Revenue Jurisdiction Act clearly prevents us from entertaining any suit on account of the Collector's refusal to grant the plaintiff a sanad, as the plaintiff had to prove that, previously to filing this suit, he had presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force, as within the period of limitation allowed for bringing such suit, it was possible to present. He presented no such appeals. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs.


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