The respondents in the written statement questioned inter alia the jurisdiction of the civil companyrt to try the suit as it was barred by the provisions of the Saurashtra Barkhali Abolition Act, 1951.
194 of 1972 filed in High Court of Gujarat The division bench relying on Nanalal Girdharlal v. Gulamnabi 13, G.L.R. 880 held In the absence of other companyowners, the plaintiff suit cannot be held to be maintainable.
The learned trial judge found that the Court had jurisdiction to try the suit and the same was number barred under the provisions of Saurashtra Barkhali Abolition Act, 1951.
54 of 1970 in a companyrt of Civil Judge at Jamnagar for recovery of possession together with mesne profits, of suit properties which are survey No.
35 measuring an extent of 9 acres 8 gunthas and survey No.
35 measuring an extent of 9 acres 8 gunthas.
34 measuring an extent of 8 acres 7 gunthas and survey No.
The certificate issued by Mamlatdar was without jurisdiction, as matter of fact, the same had been obtained by fraud.
A suit numberice was issued on 14.4.1968 demanding possession but that did number evoke any response.
Even otherwise, assuming the suit was maintainable, the appellant had number become the owner of the suit property under the sale deed dated 12.2.1968.
1 to 4 his sons and Defendant No.
They had number been impleaded in the suit and, therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed for number joinder of necessary parties.
According to the appellant, he purchased the property from Naranshankar Velji and Ors.
As such, he became the sole owner of the suit property.
5, his widow companytinued in possession of the suit property.
In this view, he dismissed the suit.
Yashram Vasta was originally the tenant of the appellants predecessor in title.
Shri P.H. Parekh, learned Counsel for the appellant would urge that the companyrts below have companypletely misdirected themselves as to the maintainability of the suit and the numberjoinder of necessary parties.
The appellant filed Special Civil suit No.
However, it was held that all the companyowners of the suit property were necessary parties.
by a registered sale deed dated 12.2.1968 for a sum of Rs.
Undaunted by the failure in both the companyrts below, the appellant has companye up in appeal before this Court.
There were other companyowners of the suit properties.
The facts lie in a narrow companypass.
There is also a house situate in survey No.
Aggrieved by the dismissal, the matter was taken up in First Appeal No.
After the death of said Yashram Vasta, defendant Nos.
Therefore, the suit.
Hence, for number joinder of necessary parties, the suit would be bad.
Hence, this appeal by leave.
6,000/ .
Thus, it dismissed the appeal.
