MAGANLAL GANGARAM Vs. VASANTLAL KASHIRAM RUPAWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case is an example showing how the process of the Court sometimes earns bad name and reputation. In a suit for possession filed in 1962 a consent decree was passed in March 64 and time was granted to hand over vacant possession of the suit premises till 31 March 66. Bai Nani was defendant No. 3 who was alleged to be the sub tenant and who was also party to the decree. This decree of 1964 remains unexecuted till today in 1984.

(2.) As possession was not handed over by 31/03/1966 as per the decree a darkhast No. 72 of 1966 was filed for execution of the decree and recovery of possession. Civil Suit No. 370 of 1966 was filed by brother of original defendant No. 1. That suit was dismissed. Defendant No. 1 had also filed Reg. Civil Suit No. 361 of 1966 for setting aside the decree on the ground that the decree was a nullity. The suit appeal and second appeal failed and till then the decree could not be executed.

(3.) Now the decree is sought to be resisted by the present opponent Vasantlal who has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 418 of 1981 on the ground that the decree is not binding to him and that he has become the owner of the suit premises by adverse possession. He is the son of original defendant No. 3 Bai Nani.