SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1994 Supreme(Bom) 565

R.G.VAIDYANATHA
Hawabai wd/o Late Suleman Haji – Appellant
Versus
Abdul Sattar Suleman Haji Ahmed Oomer and another – Respondent


Judgement Key Points

The judgment provided is a recent and final decision by a competent court regarding the specific legal issues addressed, particularly the maintainability of the appeal under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. Since the court explicitly held that the appeal was not maintainable and rejected it, and there is no indication of subsequent legal developments or appeals challenging this decision, the judgment remains valid and binding unless overturned or modified by a higher court or through legislative changes.

Furthermore, the judgment discusses the applicable legal principles and the interpretation of relevant statutes, affirming its validity within the current legal framework. Unless there has been a subsequent appellate ruling or legislative amendment that supersedes this decision, it continues to be effective and enforceable.


JUDGMENT - R.G. VAIDYANATHA, J.:---This is a First Appeal filed by the plaintiff against the Judgment and Decree dated 21-7-1994 in Suit No. 2653 of 1989, on the file of City Civil Court, Bombay.

2. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent raised a preliminary objection that the Appeal is not maintainable. I have heard both the Counsel on the question of maintainability of the Appeal.

3. The Appellant-plaintiff filed the suit in the trial Court under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for possession of the suit property on the allegation that the defendants dispossessed her from the suit property within 6 months prior to the date of the suit.

The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement.

After trial the learned trial Court dismissed the suit. The trial Court recorded a finding that the plaintiff failed to prove her possession and then dispossesion within 6 months prior to the date of the suit.

Being aggrieved with the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff has come up with this first appeal.

4. The learned Counsel for the respondents contended that no appeal is provided against an order under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and, therefore, the prese













































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top