YADARAO DAJIBA SHRAWANE Vs. NANILAL HARAKCHAND SHAH DEAD
LAWS(SC)-2002-8-140
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on
August 02,2002
YADARAO DAJIBA SHRAWANE
Appellant
VERSUS
NANILAL HARAKCHAND SHAH
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
B SATYANARAYANA VS. KONDURU VENKATAPAYYA [REFERRED]DHIRJLAL GIRDHARIAL VS. COMMR OF INCOME TAX BOMBAY [REFERRED]
MONOHAR DAS MOHANTA VS. CHARU CHANDRA PALAND OFHERS [REFERRED]
CHUNILGJ V MEHTA SONS LIMITED ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA INTERVENER VS. CENTURY SPINNING MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED [REFERRED]
NEDUNURI "KAMESWARAMMA VS. SAMPATI SUBBA RAO [REFERRED]
MADAMAIICHI RANIAPPA VS. MUTHALURU BOJJAPPA [REFERRED]
MAHANT SHRI SRINIVAS RAMANUJ DAS VS. SURAJNARAYAN DAS [REFERRED]
SONAWATI VS. RAM [REFERRED]
DEO CHAND VS. SHIV RAM [REFERRED]
RADHA NATH SEAL VS. HARIPADA JANA [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
NARINDER VS. JAI LAL [LAWS(DLH)-2010-8-114] [REFERRED TO]MOHAMMED ABDULLAH BUTUK VS. ZAINAB BEGUM [LAWS(APH)-2004-4-53] [REFERRED TO]
PETLU PRAKASH VS. PETLU PENCHALAMMA [LAWS(APH)-2003-12-89] [REFERRED TO]
WOODLANDS ESTATE APARTMENT OWNERS ASSOCIATION JAGA VS. E S SABUKUTTAN [LAWS(KER)-2017-6-210] [REFERRED TO]
KESHAB KALITA VS. THANU RAM KALITA [LAWS(GAU)-2006-9-28] [REFERRED TO]
DHAN KAUR VS. SHAMSHER SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2005-4-7] [REFERRED TO]
KAUSHALAYA DEVI VS. KAUSHALAYA DEVI [LAWS(HPH)-2014-6-83] [REFERRED TO]
KRUSHNA CHANDRA MALLIK (DEAD) & OTHERS VS. MEHAMUD KHATUN & OTHERS [LAWS(ORI)-2018-5-14] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KISHAN VS. DILE RAM [LAWS(P&H)-2012-5-202] [REFERRED TO]
C.V. THANKAPPAN, S/O. RAMAN VS. CHELLAMMA, D/O.PARVATHY [LAWS(KER)-2012-10-131] [REFERRED TO]
RAMJI KHARYA VS. MURLIDHAR [LAWS(MPH)-2006-2-112] [REFERRED TO]
NARAYAN VS. GURANJAN (DEAD) THROUGH LRS [LAWS(CHH)-2023-2-2] [REFERRED TO]
K. PALANI VS. R. MADANA GOPAL [LAWS(MAD)-2020-3-219] [REFERRED TO]
MALKHAN SINGH VS. DEEP CHAND [LAWS(P&H)-2005-1-88] [REFERRED TO]
DHARAMBIR VS. SURAJ BHAN [LAWS(P&H)-2003-4-57] [REFERRED TO]
PABOLU ARKJANEYULU VS. NANIK SAI NANI [LAWS(APH)-2023-2-35] [REFERRED TO]
Razia Khatoon and others VS. Naima Khatoon and others [LAWS(UTN)-2002-10-4] [REFERRED TO]
ATMA RAM TRUST VS. DR. CHIRANJI LAL AND ANR. [LAWS(DLH)-2007-1-222] [REFERRED TO]
GURBUX SINGH VS. FAQIR CHAND AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-8-83] [REFERRED TO]
ASHIYA KHATOON AND OTHERS VS. SHIVPATHI [LAWS(CAL)-2018-1-163] [REFERRED TO]
KARANSINGH VS. SITARAM [LAWS(MPH)-2005-1-22] [REFERRED TO]
THOMAS AMBROSE VS. RAMDAS BALMIKI [LAWS(MPH)-2013-8-186] [REFERRED TO]
KISHORI LAL VS. PANCHAM LAL [LAWS(MPH)-2013-8-318] [REFERRED]
SAROJINI VS. MOHANDOSS [LAWS(MAD)-2008-2-368] [REFERRED TO]
RAMNIWAS VS. JAGTBAHADUR SINGH [LAWS(MPH)-2013-8-115] [REFERRED TO]
AMANAT HUSSAIN VS. MUSTT SAHIDA BEGUM [LAWS(GAU)-2015-6-149] [REFERRED]
KOLLURU SUDHAKAR RAO VS. POLINENI NAGABHUSHANAM [LAWS(APH)-2022-4-7] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA MOHAN KUL NANI CHARAN KUL VS. PRATIMA MAITY [LAWS(SC)-2003-9-2] [RELIED ON]
EASWARI VS. PARVATHI [LAWS(SC)-2014-7-49] [REFERRED TO]
SAROJINI VS. MOHANDOSS [LAWS(MAD)-2008-2-394] [REFERRED TO]
APPAIYA VS. ANDIMUTHU [LAWS(SC)-2023-9-53] [REFERRED TO]
HARBANS LAL VS. DEVINDER KUMAR [LAWS(P&H)-2009-11-32] [REFERRED TO]
RAMCHANDRA CHUNILAL DAGAD VS. VASANT BANSI SOMWANSHI [LAWS(BOM)-2010-5-7] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. RAMBHA DEVI, WIFE OF LATE SUDAMA SINGH VS. BAIJNATH SINGH, SON OF LATE RAMBRIKSH SINGH [LAWS(JHAR)-2016-7-136] [REFERRED TO]
BANDI VEERA SWAMY VS. PAMULA BASAVAIAH [LAWS(APH)-2003-1-85] [REFERRED TO]
MALAGIREDDY MALLAREDDY VS. MALIGIREDDY LAXMA REDDY [LAWS(APH)-2005-1-1] [REFERRED TO]
RAMJI PANDEY VS. RAMESHWAR MALI [LAWS(ALL)-2007-12-161] [REFERRED TO]
UPENDRANATH JENA VS. SOUMENDRANATH BANARJEE [LAWS(ORI)-2008-5-15] [REFERRED TO]
KUNJIPPA VS. K.P. VALSALAKUMARI [LAWS(KER)-2014-6-190] [REFERRED TO]
MARIAM HUSSAIN VS. SYEDANI [LAWS(KAR)-2007-3-1] [REFERRED TO]
DEVJI VELA VS. DEVJI MANJI DETROJA [LAWS(GJH)-2011-3-98] [REFERRED TO]
NATHURAM VS. BABULAL [LAWS(MPH)-2012-7-186] [REFERRED TO]
CHELLUBOYINA NAGARAJU VS. MOLLETI RAMUDU ALIAS VIJAYALAKSHMI [LAWS(APH)-2022-4-87] [REFERRED TO]
HERO VINOTH VS. SESHAMMAL [LAWS(SC)-2006-5-109] [REFERRED TO]
B VEERASWAMY VS. P BASAVAIAH [LAWS(APH)-2003-1-161] [REFERRED TO]
KEDIA OVERSEAS LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS [LAWS(APH)-2005-10-86] [REFERRED TO]
SHIVAJIRAO EKNATHRAO KOVALE VS. SYED MEHMOOD [LAWS(BOM)-2007-3-41] [REFERRED TO]
VOL : 2; SUNNI CENTRAL BOARD OF WAQFS AND ORS VS. GOPAL SINGH VISHARAD AND ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2010-9-628] [REFERRED]
AJABLAL PASWAN VS. PRAMOD PASWAN [LAWS(PAT)-2011-11-171] [REFERRED]
AMANAT HUSSAIN AND ORS. VS. SAHIDA BEGUM AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-2015-7-13] [REFERRED TO]
A.K. NITHYANANDHAM VS. SARASWTHI VELUSAMY AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-8-25] [REFERRED TO]
SUGRIBA GANTAYAT VS. INDRAMANI PRADHAN AND OTHERS [LAWS(ORI)-2017-11-153] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
D. P. Mohapatra, J. -
(1.)This appeal filed by the plaintiffs is directed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court, in Second Appeal No. 164/1968 in which the High Court allowed the appeal, No. 123-A, filed by the defendants, set aside the decree passed by the lower appellate Court and restored the decree passed by the trial Court.
(2.)The appellants filed the suit as representatives of Akhil Digambari Jain community of Village Shirpur, Taluq Washim, District Akola. The defendants who are respondents herein were impleaded as representatives of Swetambari Jain Community of the area. The plaintiffs prayed for the following main reliefs in the suit :
"(a) Order passed by the Court of S.D.M. on 17-12-1927 and that passed by the Court of the Addl. Judl. Commissioner on 6-8-1928 against the plaintiffs be set aside.
(b) It be declared that the whole of the Digambari Jain Community is entitled to have full possession, wahiwat and enjoyment of rights, over the field S.No. 197 as described hereinabove and the defendants be directed to put the plaintiffs in possession of the said field in the condition in which it may be. Similarly, it be declared that the whole of the Digambari Jain Community is entitled to have joint rights in field S. No. 198/1 as detailed and described hereinabove and the defendants be directed to put the plaintiffs in joint possession of it also in the condition in which it may be.
(c) The reliefs regarding rights as stated by the plaintiffs in plaint paras Nos. 5(b) to (i) and shown in the map dated 2-10-37 be granted to them if necessary and in the alternative."
(3.)The case of the plaintiffs sans unnecessary details may be stated thus : There are two fields under Survey Nos. 197 and 198/1 situate at mouza Shirpur, Tq. Washim, District Akola, measuring 2 acres 5 gunthas and 1 acre 22 gunthas, respectively. The two fields adjoin each other. In Survey No. 197 there is a very old Hemadpanthi temple of Sri Antariksha Parshwanath known as Pawli temple. This temple and its precincts spread over 20 gunthas of land were being preserved as an ancient monument by the Archeological Department of Government of India during the period 1925 to 1964. In this field near the temple there is a garden having fruit bearing and flowering trees.
(2.)The appellants filed the suit as representatives of Akhil Digambari Jain community of Village Shirpur, Taluq Washim, District Akola. The defendants who are respondents herein were impleaded as representatives of Swetambari Jain Community of the area. The plaintiffs prayed for the following main reliefs in the suit :
"(a) Order passed by the Court of S.D.M. on 17-12-1927 and that passed by the Court of the Addl. Judl. Commissioner on 6-8-1928 against the plaintiffs be set aside.
(b) It be declared that the whole of the Digambari Jain Community is entitled to have full possession, wahiwat and enjoyment of rights, over the field S.No. 197 as described hereinabove and the defendants be directed to put the plaintiffs in possession of the said field in the condition in which it may be. Similarly, it be declared that the whole of the Digambari Jain Community is entitled to have joint rights in field S. No. 198/1 as detailed and described hereinabove and the defendants be directed to put the plaintiffs in joint possession of it also in the condition in which it may be.
(c) The reliefs regarding rights as stated by the plaintiffs in plaint paras Nos. 5(b) to (i) and shown in the map dated 2-10-37 be granted to them if necessary and in the alternative."
(3.)The case of the plaintiffs sans unnecessary details may be stated thus : There are two fields under Survey Nos. 197 and 198/1 situate at mouza Shirpur, Tq. Washim, District Akola, measuring 2 acres 5 gunthas and 1 acre 22 gunthas, respectively. The two fields adjoin each other. In Survey No. 197 there is a very old Hemadpanthi temple of Sri Antariksha Parshwanath known as Pawli temple. This temple and its precincts spread over 20 gunthas of land were being preserved as an ancient monument by the Archeological Department of Government of India during the period 1925 to 1964. In this field near the temple there is a garden having fruit bearing and flowering trees.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.