LAWS(MPH)-2009-7-65

KARIM BHAI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On July 21, 2009
KARIM BHAI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD on the question of admission. The order passed in this appeal shall also govern the disposal of connected second appeals viz. Second Appeal No. 494/05 {khan Ali and others v. State of maharashtra Mothers) and Second Appeal No. 496/05 (Sajjad Husskv. State of Maharashtra and others ).

(2.) THIS second appeal has been filed against the. judgment and decree dated 12. 1. 2005 passed by the learned District Judge Ujjain in dismissing the Civil Appeal n0. 14-A/04 filed by the appellant Karim Bhai against the order and decree dated 31. 8. 2004 passed by the learned Fourth Civil Judge Class-I, Ujjain in Civil Suit no. 73-A/04, whereby the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by the defendants-respondents has been allowed and the plaint has been rejected.

(3.) THE appellants have filed Civil Suit in the Trial Court praying to decree the civil suit for declaration that the entry made by the Registrar under M. P. Public trusts Act, 1951 (for brevity the "act") on 10. 07. 1997 entering the suit property as "public Trust's" property is illegal, nonest, nullity in the eye of law, void ab initio and is not binding on the plaintiffs-defendants. The plaintiffs have further prayed that the judgment and decree passed by the Third Joint Civil Judge, Senior division, Nagpur, in Special Civil Suit No. 143/1967 and confirming by the judgment and decree passed by the Fourth Additional District Judge, Nagpur, in Regular civil Appeal No. 16/1987 and affirming by the judgment and decree passed by the high Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, in Second Appeal no. 132/1992 and upheld by the Supreme Court of India in a Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 25004 of 1996 and Review Petition No. 1075/1997 and the order passed by the defendant no. 6 (The Collector Nagpur, who is Registrar under M. P. Public trusts Act, 1951) in Miscellaneous Review Case No. 8/1996-97 are illegal, nonest, nullity in the eye of law, void ab initio and not binding on the plaintiffs and has been obtained by fraud. A decree of injunction has also been sought against the defendant no. 6 directing him to delete the entry made by him in the Public Trust register on 10. 7. 1997 that the suit property is a public trust property.