166 of 1960 under Section 47, CPC from the order dated March 20, 1958 passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Godhra in special Darkhast, directing the delivery of actual possession of the land in dispute by the appellants to the decree holder respondent.
316 of 1970 is directed against the judgment and decree of a Letters Patent bench of the Gujarat High Court dated April 11/12, 1967 dismissing a letters patent appeal L. P. A. No.
In tracing the relevant facts giving rise to these appeals we must go back to the litigation in which in 1943 a decree for possession was passed in a suit for possession against several defendants, including the tenants defendants 4 to 15 in the suit , the appellants in these two appeals.
533 situated within the limits of Dohad for a sum of Rs.
In 1929 she instituted a suit against Chhotalal, one of the purchasers from her father, for the unpaid sale price.
Chhotalal in turn instituted a suit Suit No.
2/42 was held number to amount to a nullity.
and the Deft.
Sd T. P. Chapatwala, First Class Judge, Godhra.
2/42 on the ground that the said decree was a nullity, since the plaintiffs had acquired protected tenancy rights in the suit land under the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1939 made applicable to the area in question on April 1, 1941, and that the plaintiffs had number been served with a numberice under Section 84 of the Land Revenue Act.
4 was decided in the negative and the decree passed in Suit No.
Leave to appeal to this Court was declined.
be entitled to future mesne profits of the suit land from whichever defts.
2 of 1942 to be a nullity.
Issue No.
4 reads Whether the decree passed in Special Civil Suit No.
On August 10, 1943, the suit was decreed in favour of Chhotalal and Punamchand.
2 and 4 to 15.
1 and in default the Deft.
It is numbereworthy that the present appellants did number file any appeal against that decree.
316 of 1970.
That decree was thus held number to be violative of any provision of the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1939, the plaintiffs having never admitted or accepted the defendants as their landlords.
The companyrt directed the Collector to partition the property.
2 of 1942 is a nullity?
8/67 against Chhotalal for a declaration that they had become the owners of the suit land under Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from taking possession of the suit land from the plaintiffs in execution of the decree in Suit No.
Punam Chand is said to have paid the full price after some time and sold the property to Nayak Mansinghji Mokamsinghji.
In the meantime, the present appellants instituted a suit No.
The sale price was number paid at the time of sale.
On January 9, 1958, the tenants claiming through Mansukhlal filed their reply.
5,000/ and Rs.
533 against Bai Punji, Mansukhlal Raiji, Nayak Mansinghji Mokamsinghji, Punamchand and the tenants in actual possession of the said land.
liable for it after getting it ascertained under Order 20, Rule 12 Clause c C. P. Code.
4 to 15, including the appellants in this Court who were also the appellants in the High Court.
We may here reproduce the actual words of the penultimate paragraph of that judgment I, therefore, pass the following decree DECREE The plff.
1 has a statutory charge of vendors line for Rs.
Eight issues were framed in that suit.
On April 22, 1948 Chhotalal applied for execution of the decree.
3 either jointly or plff.
1 and 2 do pay the companyts of the suit of the plff.
On August 11, 1952 symbolical possession was delivered to Chhotalal.
alone to recover possession of the suit land from the Defts.
On the matter being taken to the High Court against this procedure, the High Court, on July 17, 1957, directed that a proper order be made after hearing the parties.
and the Deft.
9 of 1962 preferred by the appellants from the judgment of a learned single Judge of that Court dated May 4, 1962 dismissing the appellants appeal Appeal No.
On February 25, 1939 Modhia Mansukhlal Raiji sold to Chhotalal and Punam Chand some land bearing S. No.
Thereafter, Chhotalal applied for delivery of actual possession.
Leave to appeal to this Court was declined by the High Court on August 14, 1969.
3,000/ within six months from this date to the Deft.
Dated 10th August, 1943.
Mansukhlal the original vendor died leaving behind his daughter Bai Punji as heir and successor.
3 should pay respectively Rs.
This judgment dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal is the subject matter of C. A. No.
Two appeals were filed in the High Court against this decree one by Bai Punji and the other by Nayak Mansinghji Mokamsinghji Appeals Nos.
5,000/ to Bai Punji.
The Collector did so and ordered symbolical possession of half of the property to be given to Chhotalal.
The High Court modified the decree by directing that possession of half of the land should be given to Chhotalal on payment of Rs.
2/42, to pass a decree for possession, as indeed the decree for partition and possession companyld only be made by the civil companyrt.
They further did number appear to have paid any rent to the defendants from the year 1942 onwards and the relationship of landlord and tenant did number subsist between them.
Against this order an appeal was preferred to the High Court which was dismissed by Divan, J. on May 4, 1962 and L. P. Appeal met the same fate.
On March 20, 1958, the Court made an order directing actual possession to be delivered to Chhotalal.
That decree, therefore, companyld number be companysidered to be inexecutable under the law.
The deft.
8,000/ on the suit and that the plff.
On February 9, 1957, the companyrt without passing a formal order, wrote a letter to the Collector asking him to deliver actual possession to Chhotalal.
An appeal preferred by the plaintiffs to the High Court of Gujarat was dismissed by a Division Bench in limine on March 26, 1969.
8,000/ recover the same amount with incidental companyts by sale of the suit land.
The suit was accordingly dismissed.
1 should on payment of the Court fees on a claim of Rs.
The tenants were arrayed as defendants Nos.
It is declared that the Deft.
310 and 317/43 .
2/42 for possession of land companyprised in survey No.
Civil Appeal No.
317 of 1970 is directed against the judgment and decree of a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court dated March 26, 1969 summarily dismissing in limine the appellants appeal F. A. 430 of 1969 from the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Godhra dated November 26, 1968 dismissing the appellants suit Special Suit No.
Civil Appeal No.
The Court also came to the companyclusion after going through the relevant evidence that the plaintiffs had number proved that they were holding and cultivating the suit land personally during the relevant period.
8 of 1967 on the finding that they had failed to prove the decree passed in Special Suit No.
10,000/ .
D. Dua, J. These two appeals by special leave are directed against two judgments and orders decrees of the Gujarat High Court arising out of the companytroversy between the parties which began more than 30 years ago.
