9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Possession of property under a Mulgeni lease and arrears of rent due to forfeiture of the Mulgeni chit. Analysis: 1. The plaintiff's suit sought possession of property demised under a Mulgeni lease and arrears of rent due to forfeiture of the Mulgeni chit. Both lower courts dismissed the suit, leading to a second appeal by the plaintiff. The Mulgeni chit contained a clause prohibiting alienation of the land to any other party by various means. The lease involved three individuals, one of whom alienated their share to another lessee, who later reconveyed it. Another lessee conveyed their right to their daughter. The key issue was whether these alienations breached the clause against alienation in the Mulgeni chit. 2. The District Judge held that the alienations did not violate the clause. The question of whether an alienation by one lessee to another lessee constitutes a forfeiture was not definitively addressed in previous cases. Reference was made to Farley v. Coppard, where an assignment between partners led to a lease forfeiture. However, in Corporation of Bristol v. Westcott, a similar situation did not result in forfeiture, emphasizing the importance of the specific lease terms. 3. The judgment further discussed the interpretation of clauses preventing possession transfer to any person without lessor consent. The Court of Appeal ruled that allowing one joint lessee to enjoy the property did not breach the covenant. The judgment in McEacharan v. Colton highlighted the importance of lessor consent for assignments. The judge emphasized that Indian courts are not bound by foreign judgments and must consider Indian conditions in such matters. 4. The conveyance of a lessor's interest to their daughter was also contested. Citing Angamuthu Chetti v. Varatharajulu Chetti, the court held that such alienations could result in forfeiture if prohibited by the lease. The judgment differentiated from Ramanna Prabhit v. Srinivasa Gadiyara, where delay and lack of harm to the grantor influenced the decision. 5. The issue of waiver of forfeiture was raised, with the District Judge deeming the claim for rent as a waiver. However, the judgment clarified that seeking rent in an ejectment suit does not constitute a waiver of forfeiture. Precedents like Padbanabhayya v. Ranga and Toleman v. Portbury supported this view, emphasizing that filing an ejectment suit indicates an irrevocable election to forfeit the lease. 6. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed, granting the plaintiff possession of the property and costs. The judgment highlighted the distinction between seeking rent and waiving forfeiture, affirming the plaintiff's right to reclaim the property under the Mulgeni lease.
|
