KUMAR SHREE DIGBIJAYSINHJI versus NANJISAVDAS & ORS.

KUMAR SHREE DIGBIJAYSINHJI versus NANJISAVDAS & ORS.

The condition contained in the grant confirmed by the Government of India, that the appellant could not evict the tenants, constitutes a right or privilege of the tenants within the meaning of section 18. Nothing in Chapter IV enables him to obtain an order limiting or abridging such rights. Thus, the application under section 19 for allotment of land empowering eviction was incompetent.

Parties
Appellant: Kumar Shree Digbijaysinhji; Respondents: Nanjisa Vdas & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
23 July 1968
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Saurashtra Land Reforms Act, Tenancy Rights, Land Grants, Eviction of Tenants, Interpretation of Statutory Provisions
Land Law Saurashtra Land Reforms Act Tenancy Rights Land Grants Eviction of Tenants Interpretation of Statutory Provisions

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kumar Shree Digbijaysinhji

Appellant

Nanjisa Vdas & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the grant's condition not to evict tenants is a right or privilege within section 18 of the Saurashtra Land Reforms Act
  2. 2 Whether the grantee, declared as Girasdar subject to section 18, can file application under section 19 for allotment of land for self-cultivation after eviction of tenants

Ratio Decidendi

The condition contained in the grant confirmed by the Government of India, that the appellant could not evict the tenants, constitutes a right or privilege of the tenants within the meaning of section 18. Nothing in Chapter IV enables him to obtain an order limiting or abridging such rights. Thus, the application under section 19 for allotment of land empowering eviction was incompetent.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Appellant to pay costs