Of Course, it negatived the plea based on the Saurashtra Barkhali Abolition Act.
The trial Court upheld the plea of adverse possession and dismissed the suit.
The defendants appellants raised various questions including adverse possession by their predeessor, Bhalchandra, They also raised a question that under the Saurashtra Barkhali Abolition Act, 1951, occupancy certificate had been Issued to their predecessor, Bhalchandra and that in any event by virtue of the certificate they were entitled to companytinue in possession as holders of occupancy right.
The Charity Commissioner directed the trustees appointed under the Boat bay Public Trust Act, 1950 to bring a suit and recover possession of the trust property in the hands of the alieness who happened to be the defendants appellant.
By the lime the trustees took up the matter in appeal, the major issue was adverse possession, with the result that the plea under the occupancy certificate put forward as an alternate defence did number figure prominently or at all at the appellate stage.
The said lands were owned in Barkhali right by the Mandir that these were owned by the Mandir and number by the private individual who laid claims to them, was established by the adjudication of the charity.
The Haveli Mandir, Limbdi, was the owner of lands which are the subject matter of the present proceedings.
Commissioner in this behalf, However, possession of the lands had been transferred under sale deed executed by one of the three brothers who claimed private ownership of the lands in question, namely, Bhalchandra.
707/75, a principal appeal in which the matter has been fully discussed by the High Court.
R. Krishna Iyer, J. These appeals can be disposed of by a companymon Order which we propose to pass in Civil Appeal No.
