GHANCHI PIRBHAI KALA DECD Vs. MEGHAMAL SIRUMAL RAJKOT
LAWS(GJH)-1988-6-15
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on June 28,1988

Ghanchi Pirbhai Kala Decd Appellant
VERSUS
Meghamal Sirumal Rajkot Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

BHARATBHAI GULABRAI PARWANI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2014-2-79] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

A.P.RAVANI - (1.)This litigation has its roots in the partition of the country which took place in the year 1947. The plaintiff who must have left all his property in Pakistan and migrated to this part of the country was allotted certain land in January 1968 in settlement of his claim. Except for brief period he has not enjoyed the possession of the land. He filed the suit for recovery of possession in the year 1973 and succeeded in trial Court in the year 1978. Since then the matter is in appeal. He succeeds in this appeal also. Even so can any one tell him with reasonable certainty as to when shall he get the possession of the land ? We do not venture to answer the question. We only hope that all those who feel concerned for the proper management of the system may ponder over the question and may do the needful.
(2.)The appellants herein are original defendants. The respondent plaintiff filed a Special Civil Suit in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) Rajkot for recovery of possession of agricultural lands bearing Survey Nos. 98 101 206 90 90 and 91/1 of village Sanosara admeasuring 58 acres and 34 gunthas. The suit was based on title. It was contended that the defendants had dispossessed the plaintiff and that the defendants were in illegal possession. According to the plaintiff the suit property was declared as evacuee property and the plaintiff had received the same in settlement of his claim under allotment order dated 5/01/1968 Possession of the same was handed over to the plaintiff in January 1968 by the Circle Inspector Kuvadava. Sanad Exh. 69 dated December 3t 1969 in respect of the land was issued in favour of the plaintiff by the appropriate authority.
(3.)The plaintiff contended that earlier he had filed Special Civil Suit No. 496 of 196 8/07/1968 for a permanent injunction against the defendants praying that the defendants be restrained from interfering with his possession. In that suit the defendants filed written statement Exh. 65. The trial Court had granted interim injunction as prayed for (Exh. 43) in favour of the plaintiff. The order passed by the trial Court was challenged in appeal by the defendants and the District Court Rajkot dismissed appeal as per its order (Exh. 44) dated 19/12/1968 There were proceedings under the provisions of Sec. 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code also which ultimately ended in order dated 20/01/1972 (Exh. 45) by which the Executive Magistrate held that there was no likelihood of breach of peace and hence discharged the previous order passed under Sec. 145 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Thereafter the present suit was filed by the plaintiff on 17/05/1973 contending that the plaintiff was put in possession in the year 1968: he continued to be in possession but after the death of has father some time in the year 1968 the evidence were harassing the plaintiff and some time prior to the filing of the suit possession of the suit property was taken ever by the defendants illegally and hence the suit for recovery of possession and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff.
;


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