Judgment

AYYANGAR, J. : (for self and Sinha, C.J.I.) In this batch of five analogous appeals, by special leave, the main question for determination is whether the rights which were in controversy between the parties in the courts below could be enforced by the Municipal courts; or in other words, whether or not "Act of State" pleaded by the State of Gujarat is an effective answer to the claims made by the respective respondents to the rights over forests claimed by them in the suits giving rise to these appeals.

2. Vora Fiddali Badruddin Mithibarwala is the respondent in Civil Appeals Nos. 182 and 184 of 1963. Vora Hakimuddin Tayabali Amathaniwala is the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 183 of 1963. Mehta Kantilal Chandulal is the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 185 of 1963, and Pathan Abbaskhan Ahmedkhan is the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 186 of 1963. In all these Appeals the State of Gujarat is the appellant.

3. The course these litigations have taken in the courts below may briefly be stated as follows : The respondent in Civil Appeal No. 182 of 1963, is the assignee of the rights of one Vora Hatimbhai Badruddin and was brought on record as plaintiff during the pendency of the suit in the trial Court, namely, the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Godhra, being Civil Suit No. 115 of 1950, for an injunction and ancillary reliefs to restrain the appellant and its officers from interfering with the plaintiff s alleged rights to cut and carry away timber etc., from the Gotimada jungle, basing his rights under a contract date August 21, 1948, for a period of three years on payment of a consideration of Rs. 9501/- to the Jagirdar of the village, Thakore Sardar Singh Gajesingh. Civil Suit No. 134 of 1950, giving rise to Civil Appeal No. 184 of 1963, was also instituted by the same plaintiff who claimed by virtue of an assignment of the rights under a similar contract in respect of another forest in village Nanirath for a period of four years, the consideration being the cash payment of Rs. 9501/-. Civil Suit No. 106 or 1951, was instituted by Vora Hakimuddin Tayyabali Amthaniwalla. His claim was based on an agreement with the jagirdar, dated December, 7, 1948, for a period of four years for a consideration of Rs. 6501/- in respect of the forest in village Rathda. All these three suits, in which the reliefs claimed were similar, were tried together and disposed of by a common judgment, delivered by the trial Court on January 3, 1956. All the suits were dismissed. The Court took the view that the rights of the plaintiffs, such as they were, could not be enforced by the courts. Civil Appeal No. 185 of 1963 arised out of suit No. 80 of 1953, filed by Mehta Kantilal Chandulal. He owned the Inami village Lalekapur and Narsingpur and alleged that he had given a contract for cutting the trees in his villages for a consideration of Rs. 11000/- on May 29, 1948, for a period of four years, and that his transferee had been prevented by the State from exercising those rights. He also prayed for a similar injunction, as in the other suits. This suit was also dismissed by the trial court by its judgment dated March 23, 1956. The last of the suits in Suit No. 90 of 1955, giving rise had claimed to have obtained similar right of felling trees in the forest belonging to the Jagirdar of Mayalapad on August 16, 1948 for Rs. 1191/- for a period of three years. This suit was decreed by a judgment dated August 6, 1956. The unsuccessful plaintiffs filed four appeals to the District Judge, Panch Mahals at Godra, being appeals Nos. 17, 18, 19 and 48 of 1956. All the appeals were heard together and, by a common judgment, were dismissed on February 28, 1957, the judgment of the trial Court being confirmed. The 5th appeal, being appeal No. 74 of 1956, was filed by the State. The appeal was allowed by a separate judgment dated September 30, 1957, dismissing the suit. The plaintiffs-respondents filed five second appeals, being Second Appeals Nos. 105,