Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs, granted to them by the trial companyrt?
The Rojkam is signed by the Executive Engineer as also by the occupants.
Whether the suit as framed is number maintainable?
During the pendency of the suit, it appears that an agreement was arrived at between the parties and it was agreed that the canal from Vartu Dam would be run as per the line demarcated in red in the map appended to the deed of agreement Ex.45.
They, therefore, filed a fresh suit for declaration to the effect that the agreement, dated 7.11.1966, entered into between them and the respondents through its Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department Jamnagar, was binding on the parties and that the parties were bound to act according to the terms of the said agreement and for an injunction, restraining the defendant State from going back on the agreement.
If it is binding whether the plaintiff prove that they have companyplied with the terms and companyditions of this agreement?
The High Court examined the agreement dated 7.11.1966, Ex.
Their lands are situated on the outskirts of the village.
The Rojkam further records that both the sides have agreed to the alignment shown in rose companyour in the map.
From the Judgment Order dated 20.1.77 of the Gujarat High Court in Second Appeal No.
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get the permanent injunction as prayed for by them?
90 of 1976.
Under the Vartu Dam Irrigation Scheme, the defendant State proposed to companystruct a Dam on river Vartu and prepared a sketch, indicating the passage of the canal from Vartu Dam and for that purpose, it proceeded to acquire land through which the canal was proposed to run.
The High Court numbericed that the Rojkam refers to the filing of the suit in the Civil Court and the meeting between the Executive Engineer and the occupants of land and proceeded to recite that on the aforesaid subject there was discussion of the Executive Engineer with the occupants and thereafter both the sides have amicably settled companypromised the dispute with regard to the alignment of the canal.
The appeal of the State of Gujarat was dismissed.
The State filed a Second Appeal in the High Court.
Similar plea had been raised before the trial companyrt and the lower appellate companyrt but was rejected.
Before the High Court, the main plea raised by the State was that the alleged companypromise agreement was number binding upon the State.
As a result of the said agreement the suit was unconditionally withdrawn by the plaintiffs on 24.11.1966.
The appellate companyrt answered both the questions in the affirmative and by its order dated October 20, 1975 companyfirmed the judgment and decree of the trial companyrt.
During the hearing, the parties companyfined their arguments to the following two points Whether the agreement dated 7.11.66 is binding to the State of Gujarat?
45, was a null and void document.
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the declaration sought?
The Trial Court decreed the suit and declared that the suit agreement dated 7.11.1966 entered between the plaintiffs and the defendants through its executive engineer, was binding on the parties and that the parties were bound to act in accordance with the terms of the said companypromise the defendant state was permanently restrained from going back from the agreement and act otherwise than as per the terms of the same.
Whether the suit is bad for the mis joinder of the plaintiffs and the cause of action?
The plaintiffs appellants are the farmers of the Village Morzar under Bhanwad Taluka of Jamnagar District.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
This suit of the plaintiffs appellants was companytested and the following issues were framed Whether the suit agreement dated 7.11.1966 is number binding to the defendant ?
Somewhere in 1972, the plaintiffs appellants discovered that the State Government was going back from the agreement and alignment of the canal was being undertaken companytrary to the alignment reflected in the map appended to the agreement Ex.45.
47 of 1979.
The Rojkam then records The Executive Engineer Mr. B.V. Nanavati having assured of getting necessary alterations as aforesaid made, they i.e., the plaintiffs or the occupants have shown willingness to withdraw unconditionally the suit filed in Civil Court.
The State of Gujarat preferred an appeal in the Court of District Judge Jamnagar against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court.
90 of 1976.
Krishan Kumar for Vimal Chandra S. Dave for the Appellants.
45 which is in Gujarati and is described as Rojkam on the subject of the alignment of Vartu Canal.
The plaintiffs appellants apprehended serious damage to their lands by the passing of the canal through their lands and they filed a Regular Civil Suit in 1966 against the defendant State, seeking to restrain it from implementing the Irrigation Scheme, as proposed.
It was stated that the State does number admit any agreement made by the Executive Engineer either on behalf of the State or as a representative of the State and, therefore, the so called agreement did number bind the State Government.
Issues 1 to 8 were decided in favour of the plaintiffs appellants and against the defendant State.
Suit was registered and defendants were summoned.
What order?
Whether the suit is number in time?
Whether the suit is number maintainable as the agreement dated 7.11.1966 has number been registered of because numbercompromise decree had been passed in terms of this agreement?
Ms. Meenaksh Arora for Anip Sachthey for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ANAND, J. This appeal by special leave, is directed against the judgment of the Gujarat High Court dated 20th of January, 1977 in Second Appeal No.
It was asserted by the State that the Executive Engineer had numberauthority to agree on behalf of the State Government as he was number the representative of the Government.
