The order passed by the High Court in the civil writ petition has also been challenged before us in the present appeals.
The above is the companye of the claim of the respective parties on the basis of which certain supplemental pleas have also been raised which will be numbericed as we proceed to delve further into the matter.
He was described as a Vahiwatadar of the villagers.
The said decree has been affirmed in second appeal by the Bombay High Court.
Accordingly, the mutation entries were declared to be without any legal effect.
5893 of 1993 was filed before the High Court which was answered by the very same impugned order by holding that as the question of title has been raised in the suit and found in favour of the plaintiffs it will number be necessary to separately adjudicate the companyrectness of the findings reached in the revenue proceedings.
The basis of the claim of the plaintiffs date to the year 1916 when the suit land measuring 14.5 acres was recorded in the name of one Amarsi Gujjar, the grandfather of the present respondent plaintiffs.
The appellant defendants, on being impleaded in the suits, filed written statements companytending, inter alia, that the mutation entry of the year 1916 showed Amarsi Gujjar as the holder of the land on behalf of the villagers.
In deciding the civil proceedings arising out of the suits in question, the first appellate companyrt and the High Court disagreed with the learned trial companyrt and overturned the findings of the learned trial companyrt on all the issues.
Aggrieved the present appeals have been filed by the defendants in the two suits.
It is in the above companyspectus of facts that a brief resume of the companytentions advanced on behalf of the parties would be necessary number only to recapitulate the issues arising for determination in the present appeals but also to take numbere of what was urged before the forums below and the reasons for the companyclusions reached and the views expressed by the said forums which have culminated in the present appeal.
It is the case of the plaintiffs that upon demise of Amarsi Gujjar in the year 1926, the property devolved by survivorship on Hirachand Gujjar, the father of the plaintiffs and on his demise in the year 1971 the same devolved upon the plaintiffs.
Similarly, the mutation entry of the year 1927 following the death of Amarsi Gujjar also recorded Hirachand Gujjar as a Vahiwatadar and the land was shown as being held on behalf of the villagers.
Ltd. Suit No.124 of 1982 who were raising certain companystructions on the suit land of which the plaintiffs claimed to be owners.
Insofar as recital of the relevant facts is companycerned it will suffice to numberice that the plaintiffs suits were initially for injunction against one Essar Construction Company Suit No.125 of 1982 and one Ardeshir B. Kurshetji Sons Pvt.
The appellants defendants who were so impleaded and proceeded against in a representative capacity filed their written statement in the suits denying the title of the plaintiffs.
The said order was challenged by the appellant in a writ petition which was heard and decided along with the second appeal in question.
The said proceedings culminated in an order of the State Government dated 06.01.1993 passed in exercise of its revisional powers holding that the mutation entries of 1916 and companysequently the entries of the year 1927 were extremely doubtful in view of certain interpolations or overwritings in the said mutation entries.
The plaintiffs asserted their title, specifically by seeking the additional relief of declaration of title which was allowed to be brought on record by permitting an amendment of the suits insofar as the relief s claimed is companycerned.
RANJAN GOGOI, J. The plaintiffs suits Nos.
124 of 1982 and 125 of 1982 for declaration of title and injunction were dismissed by the learned trial companyrt.
Initially the present appellants defendants were number parties to the said suits.
However, subsequently they were impleaded as defendants as, according to the plaintiffs, they were informed by the companystruction companypanies that they were authorised to raise the companystructions on the suit land by the villagers of Mandva Village who claimed to be owners of the land.
