Vasudbv B. Pandit Vs. Narayan V. Joshi - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/327329
SubjectProperty;Civil
CourtMumbai
Decided OnAug-23-1884
JudgeCharles Sargent, C.J. and ;Kemball, J.
Reported in(1885)ILR9Bom15
AppellantVasudbv B. Pandit
RespondentNarayan V. Joshi
Excerpt:
dekkhan agriculturists' reliefact, xvii of 1879, sections 13, 41, 43, 44 and 46 - amicable settlement--finally disposing of the matter--instalment. - indian succession act (39 of 1925), section 63: [s.b. sinha & cyriac joseph, jj] will validity - deceased, was a very wealthy person - he floated several companies - he left behind his daughters, s and j - he was suffering from various diseases including some neurological ones - for his treatment, he used to frequently visit united states of america accompanied by his wife and daughter - by reason of a will, he is said to have bequeathed 50% of his property to s and 50% to j in a letter addressed to the 1st respondent, viz., s, he is purported to have recorded that the he had given all his shares to her - will was not only unnatural but.....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.....
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.