PATEL SHAMJIBHAI LADHABHAI Vs. AMBALAL RANCHHODDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against dismissal of Regular Civil Suit No. 134 of 1978 by the judgment and decree dated 6-3-1982 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.), Modasa which has been confirmed by the District Judge, Himatnagar. dismissing Appeal No. 20 of 1982 filed by the appellant vide his judgment and decree dated 27-8-1982.

(2.) The civil proceedings, tenancy proceedings, and land acquisition proceedings had taken place between the parties and at the present time, I am concerned with the civil proceedings which have taken between parties. The appellant filed possessory suit being Suit No. 12 of 1957 against the respondents before the Mamlatdars' Court under Sec. 5(2) of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act, 1906. The appellant apprehended about obstruction and disturbance in possession over the suit land, and hence he filed Suit No. 12 of 1957 praying for grant of injunction for restraining the respondents from disturbing his possession over the suit land. The Mamlatdar by the order dated 22-9-1958 granted injunction in favour of the appellant restraining the respondents from disturbing and obstructing his possession over the suit land. Respondents-Ambalal Sura and Chandulal Sura filed Tenancy Case No. 115 of 1957 and 116 of 1957 for declaration that the plaintiff-appellant was not tenant of the suit land under Sec. 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 in the Court of Mamlatdar. By the common order dated 29-8-1959 the Mamlatdar declared that the plaintiff was tenant of the land in dispute. The respondents filed Appeal No. 118 of 1959 before the Dy. Collector and the Dy. Collector allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the Mamlatdar. The Mamlatdar by the order dated 28-6-1961 declared that the plaintiff-appellant was not tenant. Hence, the plaintiff-appellant preferred Appeal No. 19 of 1961 before the Dy. Collector. The appeal of the plaintiff-appellant was dismissed by the Dy. Collector. Thereafter, the plaintiff-appellant preferred Revision Application No. 107 of 1962 before the Revenue Tribunal. The Revenue Tribunal allowed the Revision Application of the plaintiff-appellant and held that the application filed by the respondents' ancestors were beyond limitation and the Mamlatdar has also not appreciated certain piece of evidence. Thus, the Revenue Tribunal allowed the Revision Application setting aside the order of the Dy. Collector and the order of the Mamlatdar dated 28-1-1961 whereby the plaintiff-appellant was held to be tenant of the land in dispute. The respondents filed Special Civil Application Nos. 1018 and 1019 of 1962 in this Court against the judgment and order of the Tribunal. The High Court remanded the matter to the Revenue Tribunal by the judgment and order dated 24-2-1969 and on remand the Revenue Tribunal held that the plaintiff-appellant was not tenant and confirmed the order of the Dy. Collector. The plaintiff No. 1 filed Special Civil Application No. 773 of 1969 before this Court and this Court dismissed Special Civil Application No. 773 of 1969 filed by the plaintiff No. 1, by the order dated 30-1-1973. The plaintiff No. 1 filed S.L.P. No. 1096 of 1973 before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court also dismissed the S.L.P. No. 1096 of 1973. Thus, the respondents were held to be landlords and the plaintiff No. 1-appellant was declared to be trespasser of the land in dispute.

(3.) When the tenancy proceedings before the Revenue Court were pending, the respondents filed Regular Civil Suit Nos. 44 and 45 of 1962 on 18-6- 1962 before the Civil Judge for declaration that they are owners of the suit land and for possession thereof. The trial Court by the judgment and decree dated 19-2-1976 decreed the suit and held that the plaintiff-appellant was trespasser and the respondents are owners of the suit property. The plaintiff- appellant filed Appeal Nos. 10 and 11 of 1976 before the appellate Court. Both these appeals were dismissed on 29-3-1979 by the appellate Court. Thereafter, the plaintiff-appellant filed Second Appeal Nos. 278 and 279 of 1978 before this Court. This Court by the judgment and order dated 31-7-1978 dismissed both the said Second Appeals. The plaintiff-appellant also filed Suit No. 214 of 1973 for declaration that he is the owner of the land in dispute by adverse possession. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court on 7-4-1979. The plaintiff filed Appeal No. 18 of 1979 before the District Court and that appeal was dismissed by the District Court. Therefore, the plaintiff-appellant filed Second Appeal No. 453 of 1979 before this Court and this Court also dismissed Second Appeal No. 453 of 1979 by the judgment and order dated 16-10-1979.