{"id":141285,"date":"2011-05-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-05-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babarbhai-vs-the-on-10-may-2011"},"modified":"2016-01-26T21:47:53","modified_gmt":"2016-01-26T16:17:53","slug":"babarbhai-vs-the-on-10-may-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babarbhai-vs-the-on-10-may-2011","title":{"rendered":"Babarbhai vs The on 10 May, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Babarbhai vs The on 10 May, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Rajesh H.Shukla,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCRA\/323\/1997\t 13\/ 13\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCIVIL\nREVISION APPLICATION No. 323 of 1997\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA\t\t:\tSd\/-\n \n \n=======================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=======================================================\n\n\n \n\nBABARBHAI\nDAHYABHAI VANKAR & 1 - Applicant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nPRABHAKAR\nPARSHOTAMBHAI PATEL - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=======================================================\nAppearance : \nMR\nSHAILESH C PARIKH for Applicant(s) : 1 - 2. \nNone for Opponent(s) :\n1, \nMR HM PARIKH for Opponent(s) : 1.2.1, 1.2.2,1.2.5  \nABATED\nfor Opponent(s) : 1.2.3  \nRULE SERVED for Opponent(s) : 1.2.4\n \n======================================================= \n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\nDate\n: 10\/05\/2011\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
The
\n\tpresent Civil Revision Application has been preferred by the
\n\tapplicant-original defendant for the prayer that the Judgment &
\n\tOrder passed in Civil Appeal No.48 of 1990 by the 3rd
\n\tExtra Assistant Judge, Nadiad dated 24.01.1997 confirming the
\n\tJudgment & Order passed in Regular Civil Suit No.197 of 1981 by
\n\tthe Civil Judge (JD), Borsad dated 31.12.1985 may be quashed and set
\n\taside on the grounds stated in the memo of Revision Application
\n\tinter alia that the Courts below have failed to appreciate the
\n\tcontentions raised or advanced on behalf of the applicant that the
\n\tcase was required to be referred to the Tenancy Court. It is also
\n\tcontended that in view of the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy &
\n\tAgricultural Act, 1948, issue raised could not have been decided by
\n\tthe Civil Court as the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. Therefore,
\n\tit has been contended that both the Courts below have committed a
\n\tgrave error in deciding the Issue no.5, which had no jurisdiction.
\n\tIt is also contended that the Courts below have also committed an
\n\terror while deciding Exh.19 as the Issue No.5 was required to be
\n\treferred to Mamlatdar & Krushi Panch. It is also contended that
\n\tboth the Courts below have failed to appreciate that the applicant
\n\thas been residing in the suit premises for more than 40 years,
\n\ttherefore, the Civil Revision Application may be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
Learned
\n\tcounsel, Mr.Sailesh Parikh appearing for the applicant submitted
\n\tthat whether the decree passed by the Trial Court was inseparable or
\n\tseparable was required to be considered. He submitted that after the
\n\tdeath of the respondent, heirs became the co-owners of the suit
\n\tpremises, therefore, it cannot be said that the decree is
\n\tinseparable. He referred to the papers as well as judgment of both
\n\tthe Courts below and submitted that the lower appellate court has
\n\tnot framed the point of determination and has only framed the
\n\tissues, which are stated on Page No.18, which are contrary to the
\n\tprovisions of law. In support of his submission, learned counsel,
\n\tMr.Sailesh Parikh has referred to and relied upon the judgment of
\n\tthis Court reported in 2006 (3) SCC 224 in
\n\tcase of G. Amalorpavan & Ors. V\/s. R.C. Diocese of
\n\tMadurai & Ors.\n<\/p>\n
Learned
\n\tcounsel, Mr.Sailesh Parikh submitted that in fact, it was a tenancy
\n\tunder the Bombay Land Agricultural Tenancy Act and whether the
\n\tTenancy Act would apply or Rent Act would apply could be decided
\n\twith reference to the provisions of the Tenancy Act, which both the
\n\tCourts below have failed to consider. He further submitted that the
\n\tapplicant was agricultural labour and he was given the permission to
\n\tcultivate the land and accordingly, he acquired right under the
\n\tBombay Agricultural Tenancy Act as labour for cultivating land. He,
\n\ttherefore, submitted that this aspect has not been considered by the
\n\tCourts below resulting into miscarriage of justice. He pointedly
\n\treferred to the observations made in the order passed in the
\n\tproceedings and also order passed in Civil Suit, Exh.64. He has also
\n\treferred to Annexure-A to this Revision Application and pointedly
\n\treferred to the entries made to support his submission with regard
\n\tto the provisions of Tenancy Act. He also referred to the issues
\n\tframed by the trial court in Civil Suit No.197 of 1981 particularly,
\n\tIssue No.5 and submitted that Issue No.5 suggests that whether as
\n\tper Section 18 of the Agricultural Tenancy Act, such land could be
\n\tpurchased. He submitted that the Agricultural Tenancy Act is a
\n\tspecial statute and it could have been decided as provided therein
\n\tand Civil Court has no jurisdiction. He again referred Exh.19 and
\n\tsubmitted that the findings given by the Civil Court that it is not
\n\tan agricultural land is erroneous as it was not for the Civil Court
\n\tto decide as to whether it is an agricultural land or not. He
\n\tsubmitted that Section 2(8) of the Tenancy Act as well as other
\n\tprovisions refer to this aspect and, therefore, the Civil Court had
\n\tno jurisdiction. He, therefore, submitted that the judgment and
\n\torder passed by the Appellate Court confirming the lower Appellate
\n\tCourt are erroneous and the present Revision Application may be
\n\tallowed.\n<\/p>\n
Learned
\n\tcounsel, Mr.H.M. Parikh submitted that as per the plaintiff’s case,
\n\tpremises was let out. He submitted that the dispute is with regard
\n\tto letting out of the premises and not the land and, therefore, it
\n\tis not contended that the land was given on lease for cultivation.
\n\tHe submitted that the suit premises is appurtenant and is very small
\n\tand, therefore, it would be evident that what was let out was the
\n\tpremises with land and, therefore, Rent Act would apply and not the
\n\tTenancy Act.\n<\/p>\n
Learned
\n\tcounsel, Mr.H.M. Parikh submitted that the issue regarding tenancy
\n\tis required to be decided on the basis of the averments made in the
\n\tplaint and not as per the contentions in the written statement.\n<\/p>\n
Learned
\n\tcounsel, Mr.H.M. Parikh submitted that the submission that the
\n\tTenancy Act would be applicable is misconceived. In support of this
\n\tsubmission, he has referred to and relied upon the judgment reported
\n\tin 1996 (2) GLH 626 (SC) in case of Nalanikant Ramadas
\n\tGujjar V\/s Tulasibai (dead) by L. R.s. & Ors. and submitted
\n\tthat as observed in this judgment, once the piece of land, which was
\n\tan agricultural land, is put to a non-agricultural use, it shall be
\n\tcovered within the definition of the premises. He, therefore,
\n\tsubmitted that Section 5(8) of the Rent Act defines the premises and
\n\tit has been discussed in this judgment. Therefore, learned counsel,
\n\tMr.H.M. Parikh submitted that the agricultural land or small portion
\n\tof agricultural land was let out for non-agricultural purpose, which
\n\twould attract the provisions of the Rent Act in asmuchas it is not
\n\tthe land, which was leased out but it was the premises with the
\n\tland, which was leased out. He submitted that this contention was
\n\traised as per the application, Exh.19, which has been decided and if
\n\tthere was any grievance, same could have been carried further, which
\n\thas not been challenged and, therefore, in the present Revision
\n\tApplication, it cannot be permitted to be raised.\n<\/p>\n
Learned
\n\tcounsel, Mr.H.M. Parikh submitted that in fact, the present Civil
\n\tRevision Application would stand abated as the judgment of the
\n\tAppellate Court confirming the decree is inseparable. He submitted
\n\tthat it was combine decree for the possession and once such a decree
\n\tis not separable and the decree has become final in the year 2004,
\n\tthe Revision Application would not be maintainable. He has referred
\n\tto and relied upon the judgment reported in 2010(2) GLH 551
\n\tin case of Prajapati Ambaram Nagarbhai & Anr. V\/s Prajapati
\n\tHarjibhai & Ors.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tview of the rival submissions, it is required to be considered
\n\twhether the present application can be entertained or not.\n<\/p>\n
As
\n\tcan be seen from the judgment of both the Courts below, it is an
\n\tadmitted fact that the father of the plaintiff had given premises to
\n\tthe father of the defendant for which rent note was executed,
\n\tExh.33. It is not in dispute that the defendants are in use and in
\n\toccupation of the premises for many years. The father of the
\n\tdefendants used to make the payment of rent to the father of the
\n\tplaintiff and the taxes of Panchayat were paid by the defendants.
\n\tThe cross-examination of the plaintiff also refers to this aspects
\n\tand the defendant is examined at Exh.42 and has also produced the
\n\tdocumentary evidence with regard to the payment of panchayat  tax.
\n\tIt is an admitted fact that the rent note, Exh.33 was executed by
\n\tthe father or the elders of both the plaintiffs and the defendants
\n\tand the rent was also being received or deposited by the defendants.
\n\tIt is in this background, Issue Nos.4 & 5 answer respectively in
\n\taffirmative and negative. Therefore, Issue No.4 stands established
\n\tthat it is proved by the defendants that the premises was
\n\tconstructed by the father of the defendants and they are occupying
\n\tsince years. Issue No.5 states that whether Tenancy Act would be
\n\tapplicable and whether the defendants would be entitled to purchase
\n\tin light of the provisions of the Tenancy Act and it answered in
\n\tnegative. Issue No.4, therefore, though in affirmative, the Suit is
\n\tdecreed on the ground of arrears though it is also admitted that the
\n\trent was deposited in the Court. The Issue No.2 with regard to
\n\ttenant in arrears has been discussed and answered in affirmative and
\n\tthe discussion in the judgment of the trial Court suggests that
\n\tafter the notice was given, Babarbhai, who is examined at Exh.52 has
\n\tstated about the numbers given to the premises by the Panchayat that
\n\tit was shown in the father of the plaintiff and, thereafter, it is
\n\tshown in his name. He further stated that no rent was paid and he
\n\thas also disputed the existence of the rent note, Exh.33. The trial
\n\tCourt has accepted the rent note, Exh.33 and on that basis, findings
\n\thave been given, but, the trial court has only considered the
\n\ttenants in arrears because the rent was not paid for three months.
\n\tIt is required to be considered that the lower Appellate Court also
\n\twhile confirming the judgment has not framed the specific point of
\n\tdetermination particularly when  very existence of the rent note is
\n\tdisputed and it was necessary for the lower Appellate Court to
\n\texamine this issue. Assuming that it was an agricultural land put to
\n\tnon-agricultural use and, therefore, as per the judgment reported in
\n\t1996 (2) GLH 626, Rent Act would apply and the rent note was
\n\texecuted at Exh.33. Still the lower Appellate Court was also
\n\trequired to examine about the provisions of Section 12(3)(a) and\/or
\n\tSection 13(2)(b) of the Rent Act. The lower Appellate Court in its
\n\tdiscussion in Para No.16 has observed that after the institution of
\n\tthe Suit and even on the date of framing of the issues, the
\n\tdefendants have not deposited the arrears of rent and, therefore,
\n\tSection 12(3)(b) of the Rent Act would be applicable. At the same
\n\ttime, it has also been observed that the appellants-original
\n\tdefendants have deposited the amount after two years of the
\n\tinstitution of the Suit, meaning thereby, before the decree was
\n\tpassed or issue was decided, the amount was deposited. The
\n\tprovisions of Section 12(3)(b) clearly provides “in any other
\n\tcase, no decree for eviction shall be passed in any such suit if, on
\n\tthe first day of hearing of the suit or on or before such other date
\n\tas the Court may fix, the tenant pays or tenders in Court the
\n\tstandard rent and permitted increases then due”\n<\/p>\n
Thus,
\n\tthe language employed in this section is in negative form that no
\n\tdecree for eviction shall be passed if on the first day of hearing
\n\tor on or before such other date as the Court may fix, the tenant
\n\tpays or tenders in Court the standard rent and permitted increases
\n\tthen due”.\n<\/p>\n
Sub-Section
\n\t(4) also provides that ” pending the disposal of any such
\n\tsuit, the Court may out of any amount paid or tendered by the tenant
\n\tpay to the landlord such amount towards payment of rent or permitted
\n\tincreases due to him as the court thinks fit”. In the facts of
\n\tthe present case, therefore, both the Courts below have failed to
\n\tconsider the provisions of Section 12(3)(b) of the Rent Act and also
\n\tfailed to appreciate about the tenant in arrears.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tsubmissions, which have been made by both the sites referring to the
\n\tTenancy Act and the learned counsel, Mr.Sailesh Parikh that the Rent
\n\tAct would not be attracted at all and the Tenancy Act would be
\n\tapplicable, cannot be readily accepted in view of the judgment
\n\treported in 1996(2) GLH 262 as well as rent note, Exh.33,
\n\twhich has been executed by respective elders of the parties. It is
\n\tin this background, even assuming in favour of the plaintiff that
\n\tthe Rent Act would be applicable and rent note is executed still
\n\twhile passing the decree on the ground of arrears of rent, the
\n\tCourts below have failed to consider the provisions of the Rent Act.
\n\tIt is an Act for the beneficial interest of the tenant. It has also
\n\tfailed to consider that the premises have been constructed by the
\n\tdefendants, they have been using and occupying for years and even
\n\tthe taxes of the panchayat have been paid, meaning thereby, it was
\n\tyearly tenancy and not the monthly tenancy. It is in this
\n\tcircumstances, considering the provisions of Section 12(3)(b) of the
\n\tRent Act, the submission made by the learned counsel, Mr.H.M. Parikh
\n\tthat and Revision would stand abated in view of the provisions of
\n\tthe Civil Procedure Code and the decree is not separable cannot be
\n\treadily accepted in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court
\n\treported in 2003 (3) SCC 272 in
\n\tcase of Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra (dead) by Lrs. &
\n\tOrs. V\/s. Pramod Gupta (Smt) (dead) by Lrs. & Ors., which
\n\thas considered this aspect of abatement as to when the decree passed
\n\twould be considered as separable and inseparable. The Hon’ble Apex
\n\tCourt in Para No.34 of the said judgment observed as under :-\n<\/p>\n
\t“In
\n\tthe light of the above discussion, we hold:-\n<\/p>\n
\t(1)\tWherever
\n\tthe plaintiffs or appellants or petitioners are found to have
\n\tdistinct, separate and independent rights of their own and for
\n\tpurpose of convenience or otherwise, joined together in a single
\n\tlitigation to vindicate their rights, the decree passed by the Court
\n\tthereon is to be viewed in substance as the combination of several
\n\tdecrees in favour of one or the other parties and not as a joint and
\n\tinseverable decree.  The same would be the position in the case of
\n\tdefendants or respondents having similar rights contesting the
\n\tclaims against them.\n<\/p>\n
\t(2)\tWhenever
\n\tdifferent and distinct claims of more than one are sought to be
\n\tvindicated in one single proceedings, as the one now before us,
\n\tunder the Land Acquisition Act or in similar nature of proceedings
\n\tand\/or claims in assertion of individual rights of parties are
\n\tclubbed, consolidated and dealt with together by the Courts
\n\tconcerned and a single judgment or decree has been passed, it should
\n\tbe treated as a mere combination of several decrees in favour of or
\n\tagainst one or more of the parties and not as joint and inseparable
\n\tdecrees.\n<\/p>\n
\t(3)\tThe
\n\tmere fact that the claims or rights asserted or sought to be
\n\tvindicated by more than one are similar or identical in nature or by
\n\tjoining together of more than one of such claimants of a particular
\n\tnature, by itself would not be sufficient in law to treat them as
\n\tjoint claims, so as to render the judgment or decree passed thereon
\n\ta joint and inseverable one.\n<\/p>\n
\t(4)\tThe
\n\tquestion as to whether in a given case the decree is joint and
\n\tinseverable or joint and severable or separable has to be decided,
\n\tfor the purposes of abatement or dismissal of the entire appeal as
\n\tnot being properly and duly constituted or rendered incompetent for
\n\tbeing further proceeded with, requires to be determined only with
\n\treference to the fact as to whether the judgment\/decree passed in
\n\tthe proceedings vis–vis the remaining parties would suffer the vice
\n\tof contradictory or inconsistent decrees.  For that reason, a decree
\n\tcan be said to be contradictory or inconsistent with another decree
\n\tonly when the two decrees are incapable of enforcement or would be
\n\tmutually self-destructive and that the enforcement of one would
\n\tnegate or render impossible the enforcement of the other.”\n<\/p>\n
Another
\n\tfacet of arguments that though there are concurrent findings of
\n\tfacts, normally the Court would not in revisional jurisdiction
\n\tinterfere with the concurrent findings of facts. However, Section
\n\t29(2) of the Rent Act enables the Court to satisfy itself that the
\n\tdecision in Appeal was according to law or not.\n<\/p>\n
\tA
\n\tuseful reference can be made to the observation made in
\n\tthe case of Patel Vanik Himatlal & Ors. V\/s. Patel
\n\tMohanlal Muljibhai reported in AIR 1998 SC 3325;\n<\/p>\n
“5.\n<\/p>\n
The ambit and scope of the said section came up for consideration
\nbefore this Court in Helper Girdharbhai v. Saiyed Mohmad Mirasaheb
\nKadri,<\/a> (1987) 3 SCC 538 : (AIR 1987 SC 1782) and after referring to a
\ncatena of authorities, Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. drew a distinction
\nbetween the appellate and the revisional jurisdictions of the Courts
\nand opined that the distinction was a real one. It was held that the
\nright to appeal carries with it the right of rehearing both on
\nquestions of law and fact, unless the statute conferring the right to
\nappeal itself limits the rehearing in some way, while the power to
\nhear a revision is generally given to a particular case is decided
\naccording to law. The Bench opined that although the High Court had
\nwider powers than that which could be exercised under Section 115 of
\nthe Code of Civil Procedure, yet its revisional jurisdiction could
\nonly be exercised for a limited purpose with a view to satisfying
\nitself that the decision under challenge before it is according to
\nlaw. The High Court cannot substitute its own findings on a question
\nof fact for the findings recorded by the Courts below on reappraisal
\nof evidence. Did the High Court exceed its jurisdiction ?\n<\/p>\n
\tTherefore,
\n\tit is clearly laid down that when the error which makes a decision
\n\tcontrary to the law or which goes to the root of the decision while
\n\tempowering the High Court to satisfy itself in exercise of power
\n\tunder Section 29 of the Rent Act to satisfy itself about the
\n\tpropriety and illegality to the judgment of the lower appellate
\n\tCourt, at the same time, merely because different view is possible
\n\ton appreciation of evidence, it would not justify the exercise of
\n\trevisional jurisdiction. In other words, when the Courts below have
\n\tmisdirected itself in its approach while construing or interpreting
\n\tthe provisions of law or correct provisions of law, which goes to
\n\tthe root of the matter, it would require scrutiny of such decision
\n\tunder Section 29(2) of the Act. The Hon’ble Apex Court has also in
\n\tthis judgment reported in earlier judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court
\n\tin the case of Helper Girdharbhai V\/s. Saiyed Mohmad Mirasaheb
\n\tKadri and others reported in AIR 1987 SC 1782 has
\n\tclearly observed that jurisdiction
\n\tof High Court to correct all errors of law going to root of the
\n\tdecision which would, in such cases, include the findings of facts
\n\twhich a reasonable person would arrive at such findings on such
\n\tevidence is required to be considered. Therefore, as it transpires
\n\tfrom the material and evidence as well as discussion in both the
\n\tjudgments of the Courts below that there is no consideration of the
\n\tprovisions of Rent Act, particularly, Section 13(2)(b). Both the
\n\tCourts below have considered on one hand the rent note, Exh.33
\n\tand the validity and\/or have referred to other aspects but have
\n\tfailed to consider whether it could be said to be a tenant in
\n\tarrears and whether Section 13(2)(b) is attracted. It is required to
\n\tbe mentioned that when Section 13(2)(b) is attracted and the tenancy
\n\tis not monthly then in that case, the language employed in Section
\n\t13(2)(b) has to be considered that normally, no such decree could be
\n\tpassed. Admittedly, some amount has also been deposited pending Suit
\n\tand the taxes of the Panchayat have also been deposited by the
\n\tdefendants. It is in these circumstances though normally the Court
\n\twould not exercise the revisional jurisdiction to interfere with the
\n\tconcurrent findings of facts arrived at by both the Courts below
\n\twould call for exercise on such jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt
\n\tmay be noted that both the Courts below have not properly
\n\tappreciated the evidence and the conclusion arrived at on the basis
\n\tof the evidence is without any reference to Section 12(3)(b).
\n\tTherefore, this Court would be justified in exercise of revisional
\n\tjurisdiction under Section 29(2) of the Rent Act satisfying itslef
\n\tas to whether the judgment of both the Courts below is according to
\n\tlaw or not. Therefore,
\n\tin light of the discussion made herein above, the present revision
\n\tapplication deserves to be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
\tThough
\n\tthe aforesaid judgment is also requires to be considered and the
\n\tHon’ble Apex Court in a judgment reported in 2006
\n\t(3) SCC 224 has also
\n\tmade observation about the framing of point of determination
\n\tand the compliance with the said requirements, in fact, considering
\n\tthese aspects also, the present application deserves to be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
\tAccordingly,
\n\tthe present Civil Revision Application stands allowed. The impugned
\n\tJudgment & Order passed in Civil Appeal No.48 of 1990 by the 3rd
\n\tExtra Assistant Judge, Nadiad dated 24.01.1997 confirming the
\n\tJudgment & Order passed in Regular Civil Suit No.197 of 1981 by
\n\tthe Civil Judge (JD), Borsad dated 31.12.1985 is hereby quashed and
\n\tset aside. Rule is made absolute.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSd\/-\n<\/p>\n
(RAJESH
\nH.SHUKLA, J.)<\/p>\n
\/patil<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Babarbhai vs The on 10 May, 2011 Author: Rajesh H.Shukla,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CRA\/323\/1997 13\/ 13 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 323 of 1997 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA : Sd\/- ======================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-141285","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBabarbhai vs The on 10 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babarbhai-vs-the-on-10-may-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Babarbhai vs The on 10 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babarbhai-vs-the-on-10-may-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-05-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-26T16:17:53+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babarbhai-vs-the-on-10-may-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babarbhai-vs-the-on-10-may-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Babarbhai vs The on 10 May, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-26T16:17:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babarbhai-vs-the-on-10-may-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3490,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babarbhai-vs-the-on-10-may-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babarbhai-vs-the-on-10-may-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babarbhai-vs-the-on-10-may-2011\",\"name\":\"Babarbhai vs The on 10 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-26T16:17:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babarbhai-vs-the-on-10-may-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babarbhai-vs-the-on-10-may-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babarbhai-vs-the-on-10-may-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Babarbhai vs The on 10 May, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Babarbhai vs The on 10 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babarbhai-vs-the-on-10-may-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Babarbhai vs The on 10 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babarbhai-vs-the-on-10-may-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-05-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-26T16:17:53+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babarbhai-vs-the-on-10-may-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babarbhai-vs-the-on-10-may-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Babarbhai vs The on 10 May, 2011","datePublished":"2011-05-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-26T16:17:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babarbhai-vs-the-on-10-may-2011"},"wordCount":3490,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babarbhai-vs-the-on-10-may-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babarbhai-vs-the-on-10-may-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babarbhai-vs-the-on-10-may-2011","name":"Babarbhai vs The on 10 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-05-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-26T16:17:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babarbhai-vs-the-on-10-may-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babarbhai-vs-the-on-10-may-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babarbhai-vs-the-on-10-may-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Babarbhai vs The on 10 May, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/141285","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=141285"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/141285\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=141285"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=141285"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=141285"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}