GOALDAS DECOSTHAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr.

(2.) The second contention of the appel-lant/petitioner was that the application for exemption has been wrongly rejected under section 47 (2) (a) of the Act on the ground that the petitioner has now spent a major portion of income of land for the purpose of educa-tion or medical relief whereas the law requires the applicant to have either spent a major portion for the aforesaid purpose or give an undertaking that he will do so within two years of the exemption. Section 47(2)(a) reads as follows :-

(3.) The Letters Patent Appeal stands dis-posed of in above terms with no order as to costs.