Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.19 seconds)
Namdeo Lokman Lodhi vs Narmadabai Keshoodeo And Ors. on 23 June, 1949 cites

Maharaja Of Jeypore vs Rukmini Pattamahadevi on 12 January, 1919

3. But in this case as the lease was entered into prior to 1882, we have also got to consider Section 2, T. P. Act. That section provides that "nothing herein contained shall be deemed to affect" (now I am citing the relevant sub-clause) any right or liability arising out of a legal relation constituted before this Act comes into force, or any relief in respect of any such right or liability." Therefore, any right that the landlord had, or any relief to which he became entitled in respect of such right, could not be affected by the coming into force of this Act if that right had been acquired prior to the coming into operation of this Act, or he had been entitled to the relief in respect of such right prior to the coming into operation of this Act. Therefore, apart from Act XX [20] of 1929, by Section 2 the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act do not apply to transactions which were in force prior to the coming into operation of the Act if those provisions were likely to affect any rights or liabilities or any relief in respect of such rights. This position is not seriously disputed by Mr. Abhyankar or Mr. Kotwal. But what is strongly urged before us is that the recent amendment to Section 111(g), T. P. Act, embodies a principle of justice, equity and good conscience, and notwithstanding Section 2 of the Act, we must apply that principle and give relief to the tenant. As a broad proposition it is undoubtedly true to say that the Privy Council has emphasised the fact that the Courts in India must apply principles of justice, equity and good conscience to transactions which come up before them for determination even though the statutory provisions of the Transfer of Property Act are not made applicable to those transactions, and if we were satisfied that the particular principle to which the Legislature has now given effect by amending Section 111(g) did in fact represent a principle of justice, equity and good conscience, we would undoubtedly give effect to that principle, although by Section 2, T. P. Act was not made applicable and although by the amending Act the Legislature itself did not think fit to make the amendment retrospective. The principle to which I was just referring has been enunciated by the Privy Council, first, in Maharaja, of Jeypore v. Rukmani Pattamahadevi, 42 Mad. 589 : (A. I. R. (6) 1919 P. C. 1) There the Privy Council was considering a case of forfeiture on the ground of disclaimer of title and the transaction there was prior to the coming into operation of the Transfer of Property Act, and their Lordships' attention was expressly directed to Section 2, T. P. Act, and in the judgment which was delivered by Lord Phillimore their Lordships said that the statutory provision with regard to forfeiture which ultimately was embodied in Section 111 was not retrospective (and they referred to Section 2) and therefore did not govern the case before them. But, they added, it was in substance the placing in a statutory form of the the rule of law which had been already adopted by the Courts in India. And their Lordships went on to say (p. 598) :
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 15 - Full Document
1