Back
HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
L. H. Of DECD. Galabhai Arjanbhai – Appellant
Versus
District Panchayat – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and order dated 29.11.2016 passed by the learned 5th Additional District Judge and Special Judge (Electricity, Bhavnagar in Regular Civil Appeal No.5 of 2007, the appellants have preferred the present second appeal.
2. The short facts of appeal are that the appellants herein – original plaintiffs are having residential houses at Village: Dadva and residing since more than last 30 years, situated at Survey No.20 and 29/1 and the respondents are original defendants. The respondent no.1 is the higher supervisory authority over the respondents no.2 and 3 as per the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993 (hereinafter be referred to as “the Act”). The respondent no.1 is responsible to prevent the decision and action taken by them against the provisions of the Act and to restrain respondents no.2 and 3 from taking illegal action undertaken by them. The respondent no.3 issued illegal notices to remove encroachment to the appellants. The appellants challenged the notices and action of issuance of such notices by way of Regular Civil Suit No.191 of 2004 for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants t
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a substantial question of law to be involved in a second appeal, as well as the limitations of the High Court's jurisdiction in....
The need for a substantial question of law for a Second Appeal and the limited scope of review under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a substantial question of law to be involved in a Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, emphasizing the ....
Possession and ownership are questions of fact, and decisions such as Panchayat resolutions do not confer ownership unless registered as per Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act.
Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts should not be disturbed in a second appeal unless a substantial question of law arises, which was not applicable in this case.
The High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse; a substantial question of law must be established for a second appeal under CPC.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Gujarat Public Premises Act, the Gujarat Municipalities Act, and the jurisdiction of....
The possession is a pure question of fact, and the findings of fact recorded by the lower courts cannot be interfered with unless they are based on no evidence or are perverse.
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
