STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. VORA FIDDALI BADRUDDIN MITHIBARWALA:VORA HAKIMUDDIN TAYABALI AMTHANIWALA:VORA FIDDALI BADRUDDIN MITHIBARWALA:MEHTA KANTILAL CHANDULAL:PATHAN ABBASKHAN AHMEDKHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this batch of five analogous appeals, by special leave, the main question for determination is whether the rights which were in controversy between the parties in the courts below could be enforced by the Municipal courts; or in other words, whether or not "act of State" pleaded by the State of Gujarat is an effective answer to the claims made by the respective respondents to the rights over forests claimed by them in the suits giving rise to these appeals.

(2.) Vora Fiddali Badruddin Mithibarwala is the respondent in Civil Appeals Nos. 182 and 184 of 1963. Vora Hakimuddin Tayabali Amathaniwala is the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 183 of 1963. Mehta Kantilal Chandulal is the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 185 of 1963, and Pathan Abbaskhan Ahmedkhan is the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 186 of 1963. In all these Appeals the State of Gujarat is the appellant.

(3.) The course these litigations have taken in the courts below may briefly be stated as follows : The respondent in Civil Appeal No. 182 of 1963, is the assignee of the rights of one Vora Hatimbhai Badruddin and was brought on record as plaintiff during the pendency of the suit in the trial Court, namely, the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Godhra, being Civil Suit No. 115 of 1950, for an injunction and ancillary reliefs to restrain the appellant and its officers from interfering with the plaintiff's alleged rights to cut and carry away timber etc. , from the Gotimada jungle, basing his rights under a contract date 21/08/1948, for a period of three years on payment of a consideration of Rs. 9501. 00 to the Jagirdar of the village, Thakore Sardar Singh Gajesingh. Civil Suit No. 134 of 1950, giving rise to Civil Appeal No. 184 of 1963, was also instituted by the same plaintiff who claimed by virtue of an assignment of the rights under a similar contract in respect of another forest in village Nanirath for a period of four years, the consideration being the cash payment of Rs. 9501. 00. Civil Suit No. 106 or 1951, was instituted by Vora Hakimuddin Tayyabali Amthaniwalla. His claim was based on an agreement with the jagirdar, dated 7/12/1948, for a period of four years for a consideration of Rs. 6501. 00 in respect of the forest in village Rathda. All these three suits, in which the reliefs claimed were similar, were tried together and disposed of by a common judgment, delivered by the trial Court on 3/01/1956. All the suits were dismissed. The Court took the view that the rights of the plaintiffs, such as they were, could not be enforced by the courts. Civil Appeal No. 185 of 1963 arised out of suit No. 80 of 1953, filed by Mehta Kantilal Chandulal. He owned the Inami village Lalekapur and Narsingpur and alleged that he had given a contract for cutting the trees in his villages for a consideration of Rs. 11000. 00 on 29/05/1948, for a period of four years, and that his transferee had been prevented by the State from exercising those rights. He also prayed for a similar injunction, as in the other suits. This suit was also dismissed by the trial court by its judgment dated 23/03/1956. The last of the suits in Suit No. 90 of 1955, giving rise had claimed to have obtained similar right of felling trees in the forest belonging to the Jagirdar of Mayalapad on 16/08/1948 for Rs. 1191. 00 for a period of three years. This suit was decreed by a judgment dated 6/08/1956. The unsuccessful plaintiffs filed four appeals to the District Judge, Panch Mahals at Godra, being appeals Nos. 17, 18, 19 and 48 of 1956. All the appeals were heard together and, by a common judgment, were dismissed on 28/02/1957, the judgment of the trial Court being confirmed. The 5th appeal, being appeal No. 74 of 1956, was filed by the State. The appeal was allowed by a separate judgment dated S 30/09/1957, dismissing the suit. The plaintiffs-respondents filed five second appeals, being Second Appeals Nos. 105, 106, 107, 112 and 193 of 1960 in the High Court of Gujarat. The appeals were heard together and were allowed on 24/01/1961 with the result that the suits were decreed and the appellant was restrained by an injunction from interfering with the plaintiffs' enjoyment of the rights in the forests, as claimed by them. As the State filed to obtain the necessary certificate of fitness from the High Court, it moved this Court and obtained special leave to appeal. And that is how these appeals have come up to this Court. These appeals were first heard by a Bench of five Judges, and it was directed that the matter be placed for hearing by a larger Bench, as the Bench was of the opinion that the decision of this Court in Virendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1955-1 SCR 415 : (AIR 1954 SC 447) required reconsideration. That is how these appeals have been placed before this Special Bench.