LexLords NRI Legal Services Mumbai By NRI Legal Services LexLords
The Jain Sabha was impleaded as defendant No. In none of the cases pressed into service by the appellant, the appointment, as in this case, was on provisional basis and subject to verification of caste certificate through proper channel. On August 27, 1932, the plaintiff instituted a suit, being Suit No. 80 of 1932, against the heirs and successors of Bharamappa for recovery of possession of the land comprised in the permanent lease on the allegation that there being no NRI legal services necessity for granting the lease, the alienation was not binding on the Math and became void on the death of the last Mahant.
2000 must be protected even though it had not become final. The judgment of the High Court is dated the 26th of November, 1942. Inspector of Taxes) (1), but there the assessee received a new and valuable asset in exchange for another in the ordinary course of his trade. It was held that he was bound to account for the receipt at a fair market valuation, for though the receipt was not money it was capable of being valued in terms of money. On August 31, 1920, Gangadhar Swami died and for some time after his death the affairs of the Math were in the hands of a committee of management.
It necessarily follows that the principle expounded in the three decisions referred to above, can have no application to the case on hand. 34, in favour of one Pradhanappa and the rent agreed to be paid by the lessee was Rs. The suit was dismissed by the trial judge but on appeal by the plaintiff to the High Court of Bombay, the trial court's judgment was reversed and the plaintiff's claim for khas possession was allowed in respect of the suit land against all the defendants with the exception of defendant No.
In 1897 Gurusidhwaswami died and was succeeded by his disciple Gangadhar Swami who did not repudiate the permanent lease granted by his predecessor and went on accepting rents from the lessee in the same way as before. On April 8, 1910, Bharamappa 32 238 made a gift of the entire premises consisting of plots 1(a) and 1(b) to the Dakshina Maharashtra Digambar Jain Sabha, a registered body, for the purpose of building a school upon it for the education of Jain students.
But before it could be signed, one Judge went on leave. The defendant Sabha resisted the suit and the two material questions round which the controversy centred were: (1) whether the original permanent lease was supported by NRI legal services necessity, and even if it was not, (2) whether the plaintiff's suit was barred by limitation under article 134-B of the Indian Limitation Act? In April, 1905, another part of the land, which is described in Schedule 1(a) to the plaint, was put up for sale in execution of a decree against NRI Legal Services Pradhanappa's heirs and it was purchased by one Kadayya, and Kadayya in his turn sold the same to Bharamappa who had already purchased Schedule 1(b) plot by private purchase.
In the present case, the assessee's business received NRI Legal Services nothing in exchange for the withdrawal of the assets, neither money nor money's worth, therefore the only fair way of treating the matter was to do just what the appellant did, namely to enter the price at which the assets were valued at the beginning of the year so that the entries would cancel each other out and leave the business with neither a gain nor a loss on those transactions.
On 3rd December, 1943, the plaintiff appellant commenced the present suit against the respondent Jain Sabha claiming khas possession of the land gifted in its favour by Bharamappa, alleging that as the original permanent lease was not binding on the Math for not being supported by NRI Legal Services necessity, the defendant could not acquire any title by grant from the successor of the lessee. That would also mean that all caste certificates issued to persons belonging to Koshti community, as being Halba Scheduled Tribe in Maharashtra, prior to November 28, 2000 (the day on which Milinds case was decided by the Constitution Bench), have been validated irrespective of the opinion of the Scrutiny Committee qua those certificates.
The trial judge decided the first point in favour of the plaintiff, but on the question of limitation the 239 decision was adverse to him. That cannot be countenanced. 23 who was dismissed from the suit on the ground of misdescription. For, caste Koshti is neither a synonym nor part of a notified Scheduled Tribe Halba in Maharashtra Indubitably, if the argument of the appellant was accepted, it would inevitably mean that all appointments made before 28. 50 per annum for the first six years and thereafter at the rate of Rs.
The result was that the plaintiffs suit was dismissed` Thereupon the plaintiff took an appeal to the High Court of Bombay and the learned Judges, who heard the appeal, concurred in the decision of the court below and dismissed the appeal and the suit. On June 19,1892, Pradhanappa sold a portion of the lease hold property, which is described in Schedule 1(b) to the plaint, to a person named Bharamappa. The facts are not the same as here because the judgment was actually delivered in open court and both the judges who constituted the Bench were present and concurred in it.
It is the propriety of this decision that has been challenged before us in this appeal. 23 in the suit, but under a wrong name. On November 25, 1925, the present plaintiff Gurusidhwaswami became the head of the Math.
