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

1963 Supreme(Guj) 101

V.B.RAJU
STATE OF BOMBAY – Appellant
Versus
PATEL PARSHOTTAMBHAI DESAIBHAI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: A.D.DESAI, J.M.ACHARYA, N.R.OZA

V. B. RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the judgment of the learned District Judge at Baroda. The appellant before me is the State of Bombay ( now Gujarat ) which was original defendant No. 1. A suit had been filed against the State of Bombay for a declaration that the suit property vested in the plaintiff belongs to the plaintiff and also for a declaration that the decision of the Prant Officer holding that the suit property belonged to the Government was incorrect illegal and not binding on the plaintiff The trial Court Judge held that the property belonged to the plaintiff but he dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred in view of the provisions of section 11 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act. He therefore dismissed the suit observing that although the plaintiff had good case on merits his suit should be dismissed as barred under sec. 11 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act.

( 2 ) IN appeal the learned District Judge at Baroda held that the suit would be barred under section 11 of the Revenue Jurisdiction Act only if the property in respect of which the order related did not vest in the Panchayat. It was conceded before him that the suit should be dismiss









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