POONA CITY MUNICIPALICY Vs. RAMCHANDRA GKARVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts in this case are sufficiently clear. The City Municipality of Poona, having determined to acquire a portion of the petitioner's house for the purpose of widening a road, served upon him a notice to that effect. In the course of correspondence the plaintiff manifested his willingness to allow the Municipality to acquire a part of the house but as the parties could not come to terms as to the price to be paid, it was agreed in accordance with Section 160 of the District Municipal Act that this question should be referred to arbitration. It was accordingly referred, and the arbitrators held certain proceedings. These proceedings were brought up on appeal to this Court in February 1906 when Sir Lawrence Jenkins and Mr. Justice Aston set aside the proceedings of the arbitrators. That being done, the petitioner then approached the District Judge under Sub-section (3) of Section 160 of the District Municipal Act requesting the District Judge himself to ascertain and determine the compensation payable. This the District Judge has done, and from his award the present appeal is preferred by the Municipality,

(2.) In the arguments addressed to us for the appellant only one substantial point is taken which calls for our decision, and that is whether the Municipality can now resile from the bargain which was made between them and the plaintiff. That is what the Municipality wishes to do on the ground that it no longer requires the plaintiff's premises: and the contention is that it has the power to do so inasmuch as there never was a completed contract with the plaintiff.

(3.) If there was no contract the Municipality may be rid of its bargain, but if there was a contract, it is plain that it cannot be repudiated.