VIMLABEN HARIBHAI MATHURBHAI PARMAR Vs. GUJARAT REVENUE TRIBUNAL
LAWS(GJH)-1979-12-4
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on December 06,1979

VIMLABEN HARIBHAI MATHURBHAI PARMAR Appellant
VERSUS
GUJARAT REVENUE TRIBUNAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

N.H.BHATT, J. - (1.) THE synopsis of the case stated hereinabove makes it clear that peti- tioners who are very resourceful and intelligent have been able to thwart the earlier order Annexure G for almost two decades. Mr. J. S Shah the learned advocate for the petitioners however urged that the decision in proceedings under sec. 84 of the Act (Bombay Tenancy Act) is a summary decision which would not be final between the parties. I fail to understand how those proceedings under sec. 84 of the Bombay Tenancy Act could be said to be summary proceedings. THE fact that sec. 84 provides for summary eviction Does not make the proceedings summary proceedings reserving the liberty to the party losing in those proceedings to start de novo the dispute. THE proceedings under sec. 84 are fully judicial pro- ceedings. If the petitioners claimed title because of operation of sec. 32 of the Bombay Tenancy Act they could have certainly raised that defence is those proceedings. If they claimed their tenancy rights it was perfectly open to them to plead the same and had they done so the Prant Officer was bound to make a reference to the Mamlatdar under sec. 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy Act Nothing of the sort having been dode by the peti- tioners the question stood concluded between the parties. THE finding given in that judgment Annexure G operates as res judicata between the parties. Mr. J. S Shah submitted that when the proceedings that culmi- nated in the order Annexure G had been going on the petitioners were under the belief that the respondent No. 6 was the owner and not late Ishwarbhai. This assumed or real belief on the part of the petitioners or their predecessors cannot absolve them from putting forth an alternative case in those proceedings of the year 1959 that ultimately resulted into the order Annexure G. It is therefore crystal clear that the rights and liabilities of the parties were fully adjudicated upon and the order Annexure H as confirmed by the order Annexure I is nothing but the execution or reiteration of the earlier order Annexure G which decided the rights and liabilities of the parties. Petition dismissed.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.