On July 13, 1949, the High Court set aside the decree of the Trial Court and dismissed the suit with companyts.
On August 24, 1950, the application was granted and the name of appellant No.
Respondents 1 to 5 claimed to be in possession of the said properties as trustees under a will executed by Mohanbhais brother Chhabaji the other respondents are alleged to be the sevaks appointed by the respondents to administer some of the trust properties.
But as he did number companyply with the companyditions imposed on him while granting the special leave, this Court on November 24, 1952, rescinded the special leave.
136 of the Constitution to appeal from the appellate decree but such leave was revoked on November 24, 1952 as the appellant had failed to carry out the companydition on which it had been granted.
After the appellate decree had been drawn up, it was amended on August 24, 1950 by deleting the name of one of the appellants mentioned therein, being one of the defendants to the suit, on the ground of his death.
Pending the appeal, Mohanbhai died and his son, the present appellant, was brought on record in his place.
7 in the High Court on the ground of his death.
7 of 1953 filed on february 11, 1953, for recovering companyts of the suit, the appeal, and the miscellaneous applications, awarded to them against the appellant, and the other was Miscellaneous Application No.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 5, 1964 of the Gujarat High Court in First appeals Nos.
317 of 1946, to the High Court of Bombay.
As the application filed by the appellant in the High Court for a certificate to prefer an appeal to this Court was dismissed on January 9, 1951, he filed an application in this Court for special leave to appeal.
7 therein was deleted.
On April 16, 1952, special leave to appeal was granted to the appellant.
Thereafter, the respondents herein filed 2 applications in the Trial Court, one was Special Darkhast No.
On November 30, 1945, the learned Civil Judge decreed the suit.
While the appeal was pending the appellants predecessor in interest had in execution of the decree of the trial Court obtained possession of the land and realised the companyts awarded.
1,290 3 0 paid by the trustees to Mohanbai in execution of the decree of the Trial Court.
16 of 1953 filed on February 13, 1953, under S. 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the restitution of the estate of Chhabaji which had companye into the possession of the appellant and also for the recovery of a sum of Rs.
The suit was decreed with companyts by the trial Court on November 30, 1945 but that decree was set aside on July 13, 1949 on appeal by the defendants to the High Court of Bombay.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL Appeals Nos.
The appellant got leave from this Court under Art.
On February 13, 1953, they filed the other application under s. 144 of the Code for restitution of the land taken and the companyts realised from them in execution of the decree of the trial Court and out of this the other appeal has arisen.
One of these applications was for execution of orders for companyts awarded and the other was under s. 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restitution of money and property taken in execution of a decree reversed in appeal.
3 of the trustees and the sevaks preferred an appeal, being Appeal No.
Thereafter on February 1 1, 1 9 5 3, the respondents filed in the trial Court the application for execution for recovering the companyts awarded to them in the proceedings up to the date of the revocation of leave by this Court and out of this application one of the appeals has arisen.
The appellants predecessor in interest had filed the suit for possession of land against the respondents and another person, number dead.
111 and 112 of 1960.
1,290 3 0 from the trustees being companyts awarded to him by the Trial Court.
N. Shroff, for the respondents 2 and 3.
S. Barlingay and A. G. Ratitaparkhi, for the appellant in both the appeals .
After the appellate decree was drawn up, an application was filed by the decree holders for deleting the name of appellant No.
Me appellant is the successor in interest of the plaintiff in the suit out of the proceedings of which these appeals arise and the respondents were the defendants there.
777 and 778 of 1964.
was delivered by Subba Rao J. Sarkar J. These appeals arise from two miscellaneous appli cations made to the trial Court which was the Court of the Civil Judge, Nadiad in the State of Gujarat.
The Judgment of Subba Rao, Raghubar Dayal, Ayyangar and Mudholkar JJ.
Also pending the appeal the appellants predecessor in interest having died, the appellant was substituted in his place.
Sarkar J. delivered a dissenting Opinion.
