Vasudbv B. Pandit Vs. Narayan V. Joshi - Court Judgment |
| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/327329 |
| Subject | Property;Civil |
| Court | Mumbai |
| Decided On | Aug-23-1884 |
| Judge | Charles Sargent, C.J. and ;Kemball, J. |
| Reported in | (1885)ILR9Bom15 |
| Appellant | Vasudbv B. Pandit |
| Respondent | Narayan V. Joshi |
Excerpt:
.....directions. s alone had been given exclusive powers not only to execute documents but also induct tenants. - of the debt in ten annual instalments with power to plaintiff in default of payment of any instalment to take possession and retain possession, until the debt has been satisfied out of the produce of the estate is not an 'amicable settlement' of that claim......that the expression 'finally disposing of the matter' in sections 43 and 44 means no more than the expression 'amicable settlement' in sections 41 and 46; and it would be impossible, we think, not to hold that an arrangement which provides for a plaintiff's claim to be paid the mortgage debt at once or to have the property sold, being settled by an agreement for the payment. of the debt in ten annual instalments with power to plaintiff in default of payment of any instalment to take possession and retain possession, until the debt has been satisfied out of the produce of the estate is not an 'amicable settlement' of that claim. as to the objection that the agreement provides for the payment of interest on any instalment remaining unpaid on the ground that the entire sum of rs. 578 is.....
Judgment:Charles Sargent, C.J.
1. We think the agreement in question is one within the contemplation of Section 44 of the Dekkhan Relief Act of 1679. A comparison of the Sections 41,43,44 and 46 of Chapter VI leads us to the conclusion that the expression 'finally disposing of the matter' in Sections 43 and 44 means no more than the expression 'amicable settlement' in Sections 41 and 46; and it would be impossible, we think, not to hold that an arrangement which provides for a plaintiff's claim to be paid the mortgage debt at once or to have the property sold, being settled by an agreement for the payment. of the debt in ten annual instalments with power to plaintiff in default of payment of any instalment to take possession and retain possession, until the debt has been satisfied out of the produce of the estate is not an 'amicable settlement' of that claim. As to the objection that the agreement provides for the payment of interest on any instalment remaining unpaid on the ground that the entire sum of Rs. 578 is partly made up of interest, we agree with the Special Judge that such a provision does not render the agreement an illegal one.