Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/963/1980 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 963 of 1980
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
SHANKARABHAI
PARSHOTTAM & 1 - Appellant(s)
Versus
MAHANT
SHRI KASHIRAM GURU PURSHOTTAMDAS. & 2 - Defendant(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
SERVED
BY AFFIX.(N) for
Appellant(s) : 1 - 2. MR MB GANDHI for Appellant(s) : 2, MR
CHINMAY M GANDHI for Appellant(s) : 2,
MR MEHUL S SHAH for
Defendant(s) : 1,
None for Defendant(s) : 2,2.2.1 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 08/07/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. This
appeal is preferred against the judgment and order passed by the
learned Asst. Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Narod in Civil Misc.
Application No.110/1978 dated 30.04.1977 whereby, the said
application was allowed.
2. Learned
counsel for the appellant has fairly conceded that he would not be in
a position to challenge the impugned order on merits and has
requested the Court that since the dispute between the parties is
pending since 1977 and the appellants are of very old age, they may
be permitted to reside at the premises in question during their
life-time on appropriate terms and conditions that may be imposed by
this Court.
3. Learned
counsel for the respondents submitted that he has no objections if
only the appellants herein, who are of very old age, are permitted to
reside at the premises in question during their lifetime on such
conditions as this Court may deem fit.
4. Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents
on record. Since learned counsel for the appellants has not
challenged the impugned order on merits, this Court is not discussing
the order in detail and accordingly, confirms the same. However,
considering the facts and circumstances of the case and since the
respondents have no objection if only the appellants are permitted to
reside at the premises during their lifetime, it is observed that the
appellants herein shall be permitted to reside at the premises in
question on their submitting an Undertaking before this Court within
a period of four weeks from today to the effect that they will not
transfer, alienate, mortgage or create any third party right/interest
in the property in question during their lifetime and that they will
also not induct any third party in the suit premises. It is also made
clear that such Undertaking shall also contain an express declaration
by the appellants that their legal heirs will not claim any tenancy
rights in the suit premises. It is clarified that the aforesaid
arrangement shall continue only during the lifetime of the appellants
and it shall cease to exist thereafter. Consequently, the impugned
order passed by the Court below is modified to the above extent.
However, the orders passed by the authorities below are not
disturbed. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Liberty to
apply in case of difficulty.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.]
Pravin/*
Top