SHANKAR GOPINATH APTE versus GANGABAI HARIHARRAO PATWARDHAN

SHANKAR GOPINATH APTE versus GANGABAI HARIHARRAO PATWARDHAN

There was no written contract for sale to invoke section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act; appellant’s possession was only as agent by power of attorney, not as tenant or prospective purchaser. Improvements made do not entitle appellant to compensation as he was neither tenant nor purchaser, and section 221 of...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Shankar Gopinath Apte; Respondent: Gangabai Hariharrao Patwardhan
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
25 August 1976
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Summary Dismissal by Bombay High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Part Performance Under Transfer of Property Act, Licensee and Improvements Under Easements Act, Agent’s Lien Under Contract Act, High Court’s Duty to Give Reasons in Summary Dismissal
Property Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Part Performance Under Transfer of Property Act Licensee and Improvements Under Easements Act Agent’s Lien Under Contract Act High Court’s Duty to Give Reasons in Summary Dismissal

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shankar Gopinath Apte

Appellant

Gangabai Hariharrao Patwardhan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Summary Dismissal by Bombay High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Applicability of section 53A, Transfer of Property Act for part performance
  2. 2 Whether appellant is a licensee entitled to protection under section 60(b), Easements Act
  3. 3 Claim for compensation for improvements made to property

Ratio Decidendi

There was no written contract for sale to invoke section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act; appellant’s possession was only as agent by power of attorney, not as tenant or prospective purchaser. Improvements made do not entitle appellant to compensation as he was neither tenant nor purchaser, and section 221 of the Contract Act does not apply. The decree for Rs. 4390 is justified as appellant failed to remit the annual agreed sum. The High Court’s summary dismissal, though lacking reasons, is upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.