Jaishingrao Madharao Ranu Vs. Venkatarao Satwajirao Bhosle and ors. - Court Judgment
|Judge||Macleod, C.J. and; Kanga, J.|
|Appellant||Jaishingrao Madharao Ranu|
|Respondent||Venkatarao Satwajirao Bhosle and ors.|
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), sections 2, 97 - deccan agriculturists' relief act (xvii of 1879), section 15d--issue, decision on, whether party to suit is agriculturist, whether preliminary decree. - 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.,
.....defendces were raised by the defendants and on the pleadings all the issues should have been raised. unfortunately, one issue was raised: 'is the plaintiff an agriculturist?' that was treated, as a preliminary issue on which a decision was given by the learned first class. subordinate judge on the 17th august 1918 in favour of the plaintiff. unfortunately, again, a decree appears to have been drawn up on that finding, and an appeal was admitted in this court on, the 12th june 1919. at that time the decision in municipal committee of nasik v. collector of nasik 28 ind. cas. 589 : 17 bom. l.r. 324 was published. but unfortunately, that decision does not appear to have been sufficiently understood, and it was not until the decision in dattaraya v. radhabai 60 ind. cas. 885 : 23 bom.....
1. The plaintiff sued an agriculturist for an account under Section 15-D of the Deccan Agriculturists' Relief Act with regard to a possessory, mortgage dated 4th November. 1912. Various defendces were raised by the defendants and on the pleadings all the issues should have been raised. Unfortunately, one issue was raised: 'Is the plaintiff an agriculturist?' That was treated, as a preliminary issue on which a decision was given by the learned First Class. Subordinate Judge on the 17th August 1918 in favour of the plaintiff. Unfortunately, again, a decree appears to have been drawn up on that finding, and an appeal was admitted in this Court on, the 12th June 1919. At that time the decision in Municipal Committee of Nasik v. Collector of Nasik 28 Ind. Cas. 589 : 17 Bom. L.R. 324 was published. But unfortunately, that decision does not appear to have been sufficiently understood, and it was not until the decision in Dattaraya v. Radhabai 60 Ind. Cas. 885 : 23 Bom L.R. 92 that it was definitely decided that a finding on an issue whether a party to a suit was an agriculturist, preliminary to taking of accounts under the provisions of the Deccan Act, was not a preliminary decree within the meaning of sections 2 and 97 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1908. There is no decree, therefore, and consequently no appeal. The case must go back to the Court of the Subordinate Judge in order that the remaining issues shall be framed and then the trial can proceed. The appeal will be dismissed with costs.