Gujarat High Court
Shantaben Wd/O Vithalbhai Zaverbhai ... vs Parshottamdas C. Valand on 25 July, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/163/1985 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 163 of 1985
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed YES
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? YES
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy NO
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question NO
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
SHANTABEN WD/O VITHALBHAI ZAVERBHAI TADVI & ORS.
Versus
PARSHOTTAMDAS C. VALAND & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
DELETED for the Appellant(s) No. 2,3
MR BY MANKAD(440) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2.1,2.2,2.4,3.1,3.2
UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Appellant(s) No. 2.3
MR HARSHAD K PATEL(2844) for the Respondent(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 25/07/2024
CAV JUDGMENT
1. On going through the record as well as order-sheet of the second appeal, no substantial questions of law are found upon which the second appeal is admitted. Yet this second appeal is kept in cause-list of final hearing. In these circumstances, with the consent of learned advocates for both sides, the following question of law framed by the appellants in appeal memo is Page 1 of 16 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 25 21:05:57 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/163/1985 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2024 undefined taken as substantial question of law to decide this appeal :
"(1) Whether the lower appellate court erred in rejecting the evidence Exhibit-70 and Exhibit - 71 as not proved and interpreting Exhibit.58 and 59 has erred in coming to the conclusion that the appellants original plaintiffs have not proved their titles over the property and the encroachment made as alleged?
(2) Whether the lower appellate Court legally erred in discarding evidence at Exhibit-70 and 71, the map drawn by City Surveyor and the report of the Inquiry Officer on the ground that the same has not been proved, and on that ground dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs?"
2. This second appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') challenges the judgment and decree dated 15.04.1985 and 17.04.1985, respectively delivered by the First Appellate Court under Section 96 of CPC in First Appeal No.106 of 1993 upturning the judgment and decree delivered in Regular Civil Suit No.188 of 1978 whereby civil suit of the plaintiffs was decreed in their favour granting relief prayed in the suit.
2.1 For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as they are stated before learned Trial Court.
3. The facts of the present case leading to filing of the present second appeal are as under.
3.1 It is the case of the plaintiffs that at village Dediyapada to Page 2 of 16 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 25 21:05:57 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/163/1985 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2024 undefined Sagbara road, the immovable property with irregular boundaries of the plaintiffs' ownership is situated which is shown as GIGOJKLMB as per map. Beside the said land, there is another plot which is shown as ABCD. Both the aforesaid plots are owned by the plaintiffs and defendants. The City Survey Officer has verified the measurements and maps of the said plots and the ownership is also mentioned therein. Both the parties are having sanands in respect of aforesaid plots since 15.07.1964 and 23.10.1967, respectively. The defendant made construction of house in his plot ABCD and also made encroachment on the land of the plaintiffs in the year 1976, which is shown as TMBERS in the map. The plaintiffs filed Regular Suit No.213 of 1976 against the defendant however since there was formal defect, the plaintiffs withdrew that suit with liberty to file fresh suit. The City Survey Officers carried out measurement and declared that the defendant made encroachment and therefore the plaintiffs filed suit for obtaining possession of area mentioned as TRCMB in the map. Learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 29.04.1983 allowed the suit of the plaintiff. Against the same, the respondent filed Regular Civil Appeal No.106 of 1983. Learned Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 15.04.1985 and 17.04.1985, respectively set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court. Hence, the second appeal.
4. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
5. In essence, the plaintiffs suit was for removal of encroachment alleged to have been committed by the defendant Page 3 of 16 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 25 21:05:57 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/163/1985 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2024 undefined on the eastern side of their immovable property. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs after City Survey Inquiry Officer, Dediapada conducted the survey and prepared map indicating the encroachment of the defendant. This map and explanation to the map carried out and prepared by the Inquiry Officer are produced at Exhibit-70 and 71 on the record of the suit which plaintiffs have proved the same by leading oral evidence of Mr.Shankarbhai Madhavbhai at Exhibit-69 who was serving as Maintenance Surveyor in the City Survey Office, Dediapada. Perusing the impugned judgment of the learned Trial Court, it appears that while decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff, learned Trial Court essentially relied upon the Exhibits-70 and 71 to believe that the defendants have encroached upon the land of the plaintiffs. Learned Appellate Court in appeal criticized the observations and finding given by the learned Trial Court believing execution of Exhibit-70 and 71 by panning the reason that the plaintiffs have not examined the person who has prepared the map at Exhibit-70 and the explanation at Exhibit- 71 and therefore, the evidence at Exhibit-70 and 71 are not proved in accordance with law and therefore, it could not be believed that the plaintiffs are the owners of the immovable property stated in plaint, as also plaintiffs failed to prove encroachment alleged to have been committed by defendants.
6. The reasons assigned by learned Appellate Court could be discerned from para 12 and 13 of the impugned judgment as under :
"12. The respondents have mainly relied on the evidence of this witness. But looking to his evidence he Page 4 of 16 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 25 21:05:57 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/163/1985 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2024 undefined has not prepare the map produced and relied by the respondents at exh.70. Moreover he has also admitted that he has not taken the measurement of the properties. Therefore, it cannot be said from his evidence that exh.70 was proved by the respondents. It is the duty of the respondents to examine the person who has prepared the map and also taken the measurement of the properties. But the reasons best known to him that they have not examined the person who has prepared the map at exh.70. Therefore, in absence of this evidence it cannot be said that the respondents have proved that the measurement was taken and the map was prepared according to the measurement at exh.70. No doubt witness Shankerbhai Madhavbhai has stated that he has come with the original map but it is required to be proved by whom it is prepared. There cannot be any dispute that the map is not prepared but whether the said map was correctly prepared or not? It is a matter of evidence and it can only be established from the evidence of the person who has prepared it. Unless that person is examined map cannot be said to have been proved. The respondents have also produced the order of inquiry officer at exh.71 in which he has decided the ownership of the properties of the parties. But the respondents have also not examined the said inquiry officer how he has decided the ownership of the parties.
13. Thus it appears to me from the evidence of the respondents that they have failed to prove that the appellant has made encroachment in property No.25 and 31 of them. Moreover I have already stated above that it is not in his pleadings of the respondents that particular encroachment was made by the appellant. It is also not in evidence of the respondents that the appellant has made encroachment of a particular side. It is the duty of the respondents to come out with a specific case that the appellant has made encroachment upon their land of a particular measurement. Unless it is proved it cannot be said that the appellant has made encroachment of the respondent's land. Moreover it is not in evidence that how the inquiry officer has decided the ownership and the boundaries of the parties. It is also not established from the evidence on the record that the respondents are the owners of property No.25 and 31. The Page 5 of 16 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 25 21:05:57 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/163/1985 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2024 undefined respondents have also not produced any documentary evidence to show that they are the owners of this land. It is the duty of the respondents to prove their title. Unless it is established it cannot be said that the appellant has made encroachment in their land."
7. It is argued by learned advocate Mr.B.Y.Mankad for the appellants that the learned Appellate Court failed to notice that the Exhibit-70 and 71 are prepared by the Government Officers during his ordinary course of service and they are presumed to be correct unless it is properly rebutted or denied or proved to be wrong. He would further submit that Exhibit-70 and 71, two documents are coming from the record of the City Survey office which indicate and prove that the defendants have encroached upon the land of the plaintiffs. The defendant has no title over the land he possesses and learned Trial Court has rightly passed the order of removal of encroachment but the learned Appellate Court misread provisions of Evidence Act to discard the evidentiary value of Exhibit-70 and 71 which is otherwise proved by deposition at Exhibit-69 being oral evidence of the Maintenance Surveyor where he deposed that these two documents are part of the Government record and extracted therefrom.
8. Learned advocate Mr.Mankad would further submit that City Survey officer has inquired about the title of the property as he was doing inquiry and survey within his jurisdiction under Gujarat Land Revenue Code. He would further submit that the perusal of Exhibit-71 indicates that the City Survey Officer has taken into consideration the orders issued by the Collector determining the right and title of the plaintiff and defendant over Page 6 of 16 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 25 21:05:57 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/163/1985 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2024 undefined their part of the land and therefore it is inquiry made by the City Survey officer, settling the survey and the title whereby the City Survey officer found that defendant is in excess possession of the land which is belonging to the plaintiff and therefore encroachment was proved, which was required to be removed. Learned Trial Court has rightly assessed the evidence on record but the learned Appellate Court has committed serious error in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court.
8.1 Upon above submission, learned advocate Mr.Mankad would submit to allow this second appeal.
9. Learned advocate Mr.Harshad Patel would submit that learned Appellate Court has rightly believed non-execution as well as non-proving of Exhibit-70 and 71. These two documents were pillars of the plaintiffs' claim but since these documents are not proved in accordance with the provisions of Evidence Act, the case of the plaintiffs falls. Learned Trial Court has committed serious error in understanding the evidentiary value of Exhibit- 70 and 71. He would further submit that learned Appellate Court has rightly believed that Exhibit-70 and 71 are not proved in accordance with law. The maker of these documents are not examined by the plaintiffs and until makers of these documents are examined, those documents cannot be treated as proved documents. He would further submit that learned Appellate Court has addressed this issue in extenso and therefore no interference is called for in the judgment of the learned Appellate Court.
Page 7 of 16 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 25 21:05:57 IST 2024NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/163/1985 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2024 undefined 9.1 Upon above submissions, learned advocate Mr.Patel would submit to dismiss this appeal.
10. Rival submissions of learned advocate showcase that the documentary evidence at Exhibit-70 and 71 are seminal to the rival claims of the parties.
11. Going by Exhibit-70 and 71, seemingly it appears that these two documents are map and explanation of map prepared by City Survey officer while conducting the inquiry and survey under the Gujarat Land Revenue Code. This is a part of City Survey inquiry and often carried to establish survey and settlement. Thus, this inquiry is not limited for the purpose of mere mutation entry.
12. In order to prove these documents, the plaintiff had examined Shankarbhai Madhavbhai who was serving as Maintenance Surveyor at the relevant point of time vide Exhibit-
69. During his deposition, he has brought map of Sheet No.29 from office and from which he has produced Exhibit-70 deposing that geographical map of properties are decided from Sheet No.29 which he has produced on record at Exhibit-70, which is a map prepared by City Survey Officer showing possession of Cha. No.22, 23, 24, 25, 31, 32, 229 of the village Dediapada. This was extracted from Sheet No.29 prepared and maintained at office of City Survey office, Dediapada. Exhibit-71 is the finding of the Inquiry Officer, City Survey office, Dediapada which lead to draw map at Exhibit-70 and it also explained the map at Exhibit-70.
Page 8 of 16 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 25 21:05:57 IST 2024NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/163/1985 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2024 undefined
13. The main attack is on the map at Exhibit-70 and the explanation made at Exhibit-71. Learned Trial Court believed it to be documents which could be exhibited and read in evidence as they are extracted from Government record. The learned Appellate Court denied to read these two documents in evidence on the ground that the makers of these document are not examined by the plaintiff and therefore they are inadmissible evidence.
14. Thus, question arise that whether maker of documents at Exhibit-70 and 71 is required to be examined to prove the context of these documents or they can be read in evidence without producing oral evidence of these documents.
15. What could be seen on perusing Exhibit-70 and 71 that these documents are part of the survey and settlement of Dediapada village. Survey Officers are appointed under Section 18 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 and their duties are also defined under the same provisions. Chapter-8 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code is with regard to survey, assessment and settlement of the land revenue. Sections 96 and 97 permits the Survey Officers to conduct the survey and settlement. Section 96 and 97 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code reads as under :
"96. It shall be lawful for the survey officer deputed to conduct or take part in any such survey, to require by general notice or by summons, the attendance of holders of lands and of all persons interested therein, in person, or by legally constituted agent duly instructed and able to answer all material questions and the persence of taluka and village officers, who in their several stations and capacities are legally, or by Page 9 of 16 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 25 21:05:57 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/163/1985 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2024 undefined usage, bound to perform service in virtue of their respective offices and to require from them such assistance in the operations of the survey and such service in connection therewith, as may not be inconsistent with the position of the individual so called on.
97. It shall be lawful for the survey officer to call upon all holders of land and other persons interested therein to assist in the measurement or classification of the lands to which the survey extends by furnishing flag holders; and in the event of necessity for employing hired labour for this or other similar object, incidental to survey operations, it shall be lawful to assess the cost thereof, with all contingent expenses on the lands surveyed, for collection as a revenue demand."
16. In view of above provision of law, Survey Officers are legally authorized to call the land orders and other measurements and classification of land and also to prepare the map. Now, at this juncture, let refer Section 35 of the Evidence Act, which reads as under :
"35. Relevancy of entry in public record made in performance of duty.-- An entry in any public or other official book, register or 2 [record or an electronic record], stating a fact in issue or relevant fact, and made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty, or by any other person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by the law of the country in which such book, register or 2 [record or an electronic record], is kept, is itself a relevant fact."
17. It is trite that to render a document admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act, three conditions have to be satisfied, namely entry that is relied on must be in public or other official book or register of record; secondly it must be entry stating fact in issue or relevant fact; and thirdly it must be made by a public servant in discharge of his official duty or in Page 10 of 16 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 25 21:05:57 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/163/1985 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2024 undefined performance of his duty especially enjoined by law.
18. In the context of Section 35 of the Evidence Act, if we examine documents viz. Exhibit-70 and 71, it indicates that City Survey officer has prepared the map while discharging his official duty and recorded the possession of the parties as they are on the site and compared the same with the order passed by the Collector, Bharuch allocating the lands to the plaintiff and defendants. Documents at Exhibit-70 and 71 are stating fact in issue and relevant fact to decide the dispute between the parties. It is undoubted that they are extracted from the official book (in the present case Sheet No.29) and kept at City Suvey Office. Therefore, they are relevant and can be relied upon. True that it has presumptive value but it entails the presumption of correctness. It is a rebutable evidence but otherside, questioning the evidentiary value of these documentary evidence, has to prove the same by leading credible rebuttal evidence. Exhibit-70 and 71 is prepared by responsible officer of the Government while discharging his duty and as such they creates a fact in issue and constituting relevant fact to decide the dispute between the parties. Since these documents have statutory flavour and prepared under the authority of the statute, they have to be given weight (See State of Bihar vs. Radha Krishna Singh and others - AIR 1983 SC 684) and therefore, they are admissible in the evidence.
19. In Manu Pujhari and another vs. State of Orissa - AIR 1965 Orissa 49, the Orissa High Court in para 5 held as under :
Page 11 of 16 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 25 21:05:57 IST 2024NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/163/1985 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2024 undefined "5. The first contention must prevail. The position of law is well settled that Survey & Settlement Report is a public document and is admissible in evidence Brajasunder Deb v. Rajendra Narayan, AIR 1941 Pat
260. In Martand Rao v. Malhar Rao, AIR 1928 P. C. 10, their Lordships observed that official reports regarding the nature of the estate are valuable and in many cases the best evidence of facts stated therein, but opinion therein expressed should not be treated as conclusive in respect of matters requiring judicial determination, however eminent the authors of such reports may be..."
20. Another provisions of law which could be taken into consideration are Sections 83 and 87 of the Evidence Act, which read as under :
"83. Presumption as to maps or plans made by authority of Government.--The Court shall presume that maps or plans purporting to be made by the authority of 4 [the Central Government or any State Government] were so made, and are accurate; but maps or plans made for the purposes of any cause must be proved to be accurate.
87. Presumption as to books, maps and charts. -- The Court may presume that any book to which it may refer for information on matters of public or general interest, and that any published map or chart, the statements of which are relevant facts, and which is produced for its inspection, was written and published by the person, and at the time and place, by whom or at which it purports to have been written or published."
21. The presumption is attached with the maps or plan made by the authority of the Government and the person impeaching the correctness of such map or plan has to prove them as wrong. In case of Tarakdas Acharjee Choudhury vs. Secy. Of State - AIR 1935 Privy Council 125, the Hon'ble Privy Council held as under :
Page 12 of 16 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 25 21:05:57 IST 2024NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/163/1985 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2024 undefined "The Revenue Survey is conducted by a public officer in the exercise of his statutory authority, and he must have given an opportunity to all the persons interested in the proceedings to make their claims and to produce their evidence in support thereof. The maps thus prepared after due inquiry are presumed to be correct, unless they are shown to be wrong."
(Para 128)
22. Coming back to the case on hand, what could be noticed from Exhibit-70 and 71 which has recorded the finding of the City Survey Officer. He has observed that the open land stated in boundary of ABCD has been given to Parshottambhai Chhaganbhai by the Collector vide order no.5462 dated 23.10.1968. It is admeasuring 10.65 (East-West x 13.14 North- south sq.mtrs.). The entry of which has been made vide Entry No.62 in village form No.2. Likewise he has also narrated that land shown under the boundary of EFGHIJKLMB was given to one Vitthalbhai Javerbhai on 15.07.1964 by the Collector, Bharuch vide his order No.4582. The plaintiff is widow of Vitthalbhai Javerbhai. Taking assistance from both the order learned City Survey Inquiry Officer has taken up the survey of the land and also measured the land and believed that the property being Cha.No.21 to 24 and 32 stated in Exhibit-70 and 71 are in possession of the heirs of the deceased Vithhalbhai. It is also stated by him that this land has been given under the condition of kiraya. He has also noted that land shown under the identification as EFGQO is presently in possession of the plaintiff, is not given to her and plaintiff is in excess possession of the land and that land was declared as government land. It is also recorded by the City Survey Officer that the land which is Page 13 of 16 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 25 21:05:57 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/163/1985 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2024 undefined situated on the west site of Cha.No.31 and also on west side of Cha.30 is included in the land given to the late Vitthalbhai Javerbhai and it is shown as IJKR in the map at Exhibit-70. Therefore, he has declared that the heirs of Vithhalbhai Javerbhai are the owner of the property. It is specifically noted by him that land of Cha.No.25, 31 and 32 are not given to Parshottambhai Chhaganbhai by the Collector. It is also recorded by the City Survey Officer that, on this part of the land which was given to Lallubhai Shivabhai by the Vitthalbhai Javerbhai for putting up the cabin and taking the advantage of this aspect Lallubhai Shivabhai has sold the said land to Parshottambhai Chhaganbhai on oral sale on 11.06.1965 and since the the Parshottambhai Chhaganbhai is in possession of the said disputed land which otherwise belongs to the plaintiff and as such it is stated that defendants are in excess possession of the land, is termed as being encroachment upon the land of plaintiffs. To rebut this evidence, there is nothing on record. Exhibit-70 and 71 as stated are prepared by the City Survey Officers in discharge of their official duty. The defendants who denied these documents could not establish any rebuttal evidence against these two documents on record. Learned Appellate Court went on to believe that Exhibit-70 and 71 could not be said to be proved documents as there is no direct evidence as required under Section 60 of the Evidence Act has been produced by the plaintiff. But these two documents are prepared by the Government Officers while discharging their official duty and they have weight in the evidence, may not be conclusive but the defendants have to discredit them by leading cogent evidence. Exhibit-71 is in fact survey and settlement of all Page 14 of 16 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 25 21:05:57 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/163/1985 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2024 undefined Cha. Numbers based upon the orders passed by the Collector, Bharuch giving land to the plaintiff or to the defendant. This report of the Survey Officer indicates that land upon which the defendants have encroached was never given to him by the Collector but he has taken it from Lallubhai who has been put in possession by Vitthalbhai the husband of the present petitioner. Lallubhai had permissive possession under the title of Vitthalbhai. Lallubhai cannot pass any title of the land he possesses as he was not holding any title.
23. Whether a question of law is a substantial one and whether such question is involved in the case or not, would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The paramount overall consideration is the need for striking a judicious balance between the indispensable obligation to do justice at all stages and the impelling necessity of avoiding prolongation in the life of any lis. This proposition finds support from Santosh Hazari vs. Purshottam Tiwari [(2001) 3 SCC 179] reiterated in the judgment of Nazir Mohamed vs. J. Kamala & Ors., [(2020) 19 SCC 57] . At this juncture, I may also refer to some of the well recognized exception with the general rule that the High Court will not interfere with the concurrent finding of the court below. Paragraph 33.4 in case of Nazir Mohamed (supra) is relevant which reads thus:
"33.4 The general rule is, that High Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below. But it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well-recognised exceptions are where
(i) the courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence; (ii) the courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously; or (iii) the courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof. A decision based on no evidence, does not refer only to cases where there is a total Page 15 of 16 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 25 21:05:57 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/163/1985 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2024 undefined dearth of evidence, but also refers to case, where the evidence, taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding."
24. In view of that the possession of the defendants could be held as encroachment. The suit therefore based upon the report of the City Survey Officer and the map prepared thereof for removal of encroachment was justified and legal and plaintiff had legally proved that defendants have made encroachment upon the land for which relief is prayed in para 8(1) of the plaint. In the discussion of the aforesaid, the substantial questions of law are answered that the learned Appellate Court has erred in rejecting the evidentiary value of Exhibit-70 and 71, so also in interpreting Exhibit-58 and 59 and wrongly concluded that the plaintiff has failed to prove his title over the property and the encroachment made in the land as alleged. Issue No.2 can also be answered that the learned Appellate Court has legally erred in discarding the evidentiary value of Exhibit-70 and 71.
25. For the foregoing reasons, the second appeal succeeds. The judgment and decree arrived at by learned Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No.106 of 1983 dated 15/04/1985 is upturned and the judgment and decree arrived at by the learned Trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No.188 of 1978 dated 29/04/1983 is restored and upheld. Decree be drawn. No order as to costs. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Court.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) sompura / Gaurav Page 16 of 16 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 25 21:05:57 IST 2024