FA/1233/1986 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1233 of 1986 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 ? =================================== MOTIBHAI PUNJABHAI CHAUDHARI & 1 - Appellant(s) Versus SHETH RASIKLAL CHIMANLAL NAGRI & 9 - Defendant(s) =================================== Appearance : MR RN SHAH for Appellant(s) : 1 - 2. (MR PV NANAVATI) for Defendant(s) : 1,3 - 10. NOTICE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 2, ================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI FA/1233/1986 2/3 JUDGMENT Date : 09/05/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 29th July 1986 passed by City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No.665 of 1980. 2. The plaintiffs had filed the suit for declaration that the defendants have no right to either construct or obstruct the user of the plaintiffs over the 30 ft road between part of survey no.8, part of survey nos.11 and 12 of the village Isanpur and Survey Nos.54/1 and 54/2 of Dani Limda and restrain them from carrying out construction of any nature over that open land. 3. As a result of hearing and perusal of the record it is found that after framing the issues the trial court has considered the issue no.1 in para 8 and observed that it is rightly contended by the learned advocate for the defendants that such a declaration cannot be granted in view of the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act. It was therefore decided that the suit of the plaintiff was not maintainable. FA/1233/1986 3/3 JUDGMENT 4. As regards issue no.2 whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants are trying to obstruct in the suit 30 ft. road is concerned, the discussion is in paras 9 to 14 of the judgement wherein the trial court has considered various documents including Exh.80 and 90 and the map at Exh..108 and came to the conclusion that the defendants are entitled to construct the compound wall or wire fencing and that they are not doing anything illegal against the plaintiffs. 5. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings adopted and findings arrived at by the trial court. Hence the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. [K.S. JHAVERI, J.] ar