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

2001 Supreme(Guj) 776

H.H.MEHTA, Y.B.BHATT
DARAYAS BAMANSHAH MEDHORA – Appellant
Versus
NARIMAN BAMANSHA MEDHORA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: M.D.PANDYA, NILESH PANDYA, PREMAL R.JOSHI, S.M.SHAH

Y. B. BHATT, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under section 96, CPC, at the instance of the appellant who was the plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 1395/98, and who was also the defendant in Special Civil Suit No. 700/2000.

( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the contentions raised in the present appeal, it is first necessary to appreciate the factual background. The facts so far they are relevant and pertinent to the decision in the present appeal are not in dispute.

( 3 ) THE present appellant as the plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 1395/98 before the trial court. It is pertinent to note that in the said suit the appellant-plaintiff had not sought any decree for any declaration whatsoever. The only relief sought in the said suit was for a permanent prohibitory injunction seeking to restrain the defendant of that suit (the present respondent) from disturbing the possession of the appellant-plaintiff in respect of the suit property, and/or from dispossessing the appellant-plaintiff. As against the aforesaid suit, the present respondent as plaintiff had filed Special Civil Suit No. 700/2000, firstly for a declaration that he was the owner of the suit property and therefore entitled to ret




















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