GUJERAT GINNING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED Vs. MOTILAL HIRABHAI SPINNING AND WEAVING COMPANY LTD(NO1)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This litigation is mainly concerned with two pieces of land, the first containing an area of 1590 square yards at present occupied by a godown and a tank, and the second some 6771 square yards of open land. There is a subsidiary point about ten square yards at present occupied by a steam chest. Suit No. 208 of 1923 was brought by The Motilal Hirabhai Spinning and Weaving and Manufacturing Company, Limited, against The Gujerat Ginning and Manufacturing Company, Limited, for ejectment as regards the 1590 square yards, viz., the built on land, and asking for an injunction as regards the other 6771 square yards, viz., the open land, to prevent the defendants from trespassing thereon.

(2.) The learned Judge in effect decided in favour of the defendants as regards the built on land, and in favour of the plaintiffs as regards the open land. As regards the built on land he, by a supplemental judgment, directed the plaintiffs to grant a lease of the land in question for certain periods and on certain conditions. There are appeals and cross appeals and cross- objections on almost everything that the learned Judge decided. Appeal No. 237 of 1925 before us is by the defendants against so much of the judgment as is in favour of the plaintiffs. There are cross-objections filed in that appeal by the plaintiffs. Then appeal No. 82 of 1926 is also by the defendants objecting to the lease granted, and asking that a different lease should be directed. Then appeal No. 119 of 1926 is by the plaintiffs objecting incidentally to any lease at all being granted to the defendants.

(3.) In appeal this Court endeavoured to get the parties to arrive at a compromise of the disputes between them, but in the end those efforts proved unsuccessful, and accordingly we have to determine what are the strict legal rights of the parties. As regards the facts I do not propose to detail them because we have here the benefit of a careful and detailed judgment by the learned Judge, which relieves me from the necessity of a detailed statement. But shortly stated, it may be said that in form at any rate this is a dispute between two companies engaged in the cotton business who own adjoining lands. For many years they had common agents, but those common agents utilised the land of the plaintiffs for the benefit of the defendants, and we have to solve the conundrums arising there from, because unfortunately the common agents were extremely unbusiness like, as I shall presently show, and it is largely their carelessness which has led to the present litigation.