1947 (7) TMI 12 - HC - Indian Laws

Court sets aside judgments, dismisses suit, orders costs. Civil court jurisdiction excluded. Agreements unenforceable.

Province Of Bombay Versus Hormusji Manekji

The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments and decrees appealed from, and dismissed the suit. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's ... - Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of civil courts under Section 4(b) of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876.2. Validity and enforceability of the agreements of 1906, 1915, and 1924.3. Authority of the Governor in Council under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts under Section 4(b) of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876:The appellant argued that the jurisdiction of civil courts was excluded by Section 4(b) of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876, which prevents civil courts from exercising jurisdiction over objections to the amount or incidence of any assessment of land-revenue authorized by the Government. The respondent maintained that the civil courts had jurisdiction to determine questions of excess of statutory powers conferred by the Code. The court held that the respondent's claim, based on the agreements, constituted objections to the amount or incidence of assessments authorized by the Government, thereby excluding the jurisdiction of the civil court. The court expressed difficulty in reconciling the High Court's decree with the established facts and legal position and concluded that the respondent's claim was barred by Section 4(b).2. Validity and Enforceability of the Agreements of 1906, 1915, and 1924:The agreements of 1906 and 1915 were examined in detail. The 1924 agreement was found to be unenforceable as the Collector had no authority to act as an agent of the Government in becoming a party to an agreement in the old form A. The 1906 agreement was superseded by the 1915 agreement, which dealt with a new subject of assessment including part of Survey No. 150/A. The court found that the respondent had made unauthorized alterations and extensions to the buildings, which materially changed the subject of assessment under the 1915 agreement. The court concluded that the respondent's unauthorized alterations rendered the 1915 agreement useless and unenforceable.3. Authority of the Governor in Council under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879:The court examined whether the Governor in Council had the authority to cancel the agreements under Section 211 of the Code. Section 211 allows the Governor in Council to call for and examine the record of any inquiry or proceedings of any subordinate officer and to pass orders modifying, annulling, or reversing such decisions or orders. The court found that the Governor in Council's order of April 11, 1930, which impliedly treated the agreements as broken or canceled, did no more than recognize the true position of the agreements in law and was not ultra vires. The court concluded that the Governor in Council acted within the powers conferred by Section 211 of the Code.Conclusion:The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments and decrees appealed from, and dismissed the suit. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal, while the respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs in all the courts in India. The court's decision was based on the findings that the civil court's jurisdiction was excluded under Section 4(b) of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, the agreements of 1906 and 1915 were rendered unenforceable by the respondent's unauthorized alterations, and the Governor in Council acted within the authority conferred by Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879.