Back
KULDIP SINGH, S.MOHAN
Laxmishankar Harishankar Bhatt – Appellant
Versus
Yashram Vasta – Respondent
Key Points: - The suit was dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties (other co-owners) and this was set aside; Court held lack of specific finding on co-owners prevents dismissal (!) (!) . - Appellant argued a co-owner can maintain a suit for possession; Court references Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath and discusses maintainability despite co-ownership issues (!) (!) . - The appellate court ordered decree for possession of the suit properties less six acres, with six acres to be given to respondents as full owners (not tenants), recognizing resolution with co-ownership issues (!) . - Genealogical evidence alone cannot prove co-ownership; needed explicit evidence of existence and rights of co-owners (!) . - The case concerns interpretation of non-joinder under Civil Procedure Code and relevant local Acts (Saurashtra Barkhali Abolition Act) affecting maintainability and jurisdiction (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT
MOHAN, J.:—Undaunted by the failure in both the Courts below, the appellant has come up in appeal before this Court. The facts lie in a narrow compass.
2. The appellant filed Special Civil Suit No. 54 of 1970 in a Court of Civil Judge at Jamnagar for recovery of possession together with mesne profits, of suit properties which are survey No. 34 measuring an extent of 8 acres 7 gunthas and survey No. 35 measuring an extent of 9 acres 8 gunthas. There is also a house situate in survey No. 34. According to the appellant, he purchased the property from Narashankar Velji and others by a registered sale deed dated 12-2-1968 for a sum of Rupees 6,000 /- As such, he became the sole owner of the suit property. Vashram Vasta was originally the tenant of the appellants predecessor-in-title. After the death of said Vashram Vasta, defendant Nos. I to 4, his sons and Defendant No. 5, his widow continued in possession of the suit property. A suit notice was issued on 14-4-1968 demanding possession but that did not evoke any response. Therefore, the suit.
3. The respondents in the written statement questioned inter alia the jurisdiction of the civil Court to try the suit as it was barred by
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
