AKHIL BHARTVARSHIYA MARWARI AGARWAL JATIYA KOSH & ORS. versus BRIJLAL TIBREWAL & ORS.

AKHIL BHARTVARSHIYA MARWARI AGARWAL JATIYA KOSH & ORS. versus BRIJLAL TIBREWAL & ORS.

The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by modifying its original order below the 'Note for speaking to the Minutes', as such powers are limited to correcting only clerical or typographical errors, not substantive changes. Additionally, the plaintiffs were entitled only to the conveyance of 1009.70 sq. meters, representing the built-up area, not the entire plot. Orders by the High Court and Divisional Registrar granting or confirming conveyance beyond this were unsustainable and set aside.

Parties
Appellant/defendant: Akhil Bhartvarshiya Marwari Agarwal Jatiya Kosh & Ors.; Respondent/plaintiff: Brijlal Tibrewal & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
14 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Hearing/appeal
Outcome
Appeals allowed; impugned High Court and Divisional Registrar orders quashed and set aside.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of High Court Under 'note for Speaking to the Minutes', Scope of Appellate Powers, Deemed Conveyance, Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 (mofa)
Practice and Procedure Property Law Trusts Co Operative Societies Jurisdiction of High Court Under 'note for Speaking to the Minutes' Scope of Appellate Powers Deemed Conveyance Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Akhil Bhartvarshiya Marwari Agarwal Jatiya Kosh & Ors.

Appellant/defendant

Brijlal Tibrewal & Ors.

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Hearing/appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction while passing an order below 'Note for speaking to the Minutes' and modifying its earlier judgment
  2. 2 Whether the Deed of Conveyance should be executed for the area beyond 1009.70 sq. meters (built-up area of building A-1)
  3. 3 If the original plaintiffs were entitled to conveyance of area beyond the built-up area

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by modifying its original order below the 'Note for speaking to the Minutes', as such powers are limited to correcting only clerical or typographical errors, not substantive changes. Additionally, the plaintiffs were entitled only to the conveyance of 1009.70 sq. meters, representing the built-up area, not the entire plot. Orders by the High Court and Divisional Registrar granting or confirming conveyance beyond this were unsustainable and set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; impugned High Court and Divisional Registrar orders quashed and set aside.

Orders

  • Impugned orders dated 23.12.2014 and 04.07.2015 of the High Court quashed and set aside.
  • Impugned judgment and order dated 10.09.2015 in Writ Petition (C) No.992/2015 quashed and set aside.