https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169894 Article 363 barred the suit because the dispute arose from the meaning and effect of a covenant governing the post-integration occupation and use of the property, and the surrounding conduct showed a real controversy over that arrangement. The Rajasthan HC therefore upheld the constitutional objection and held the suit not maintainable. Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act also did not support a claim for use and occupation, because the ingredients of lawful non-gratuitous benefit, delivery in the statutory sense, and privity were not established, and the evidence indicated that occupation was intended to continue without rent or compensation. The decree dismissing the suit was sustained. en-us Wed, 10 Apr 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 May 2015 16:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169894 Article 363 barred the suit because the dispute arose from the meaning and effect of a covenant governing the post-integration occupation and use of the property, and the surrounding conduct showed a real controversy over that arrangement. The Rajasthan HC therefore upheld the constitutional objection and held the suit not maintainable. Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act also did not support a claim for use and occupation, because the ingredients of lawful non-gratuitous benefit, delivery in the statutory sense, and privity were not established, and the evidence indicated that occupation was intended to continue without rent or compensation. The decree dismissing the suit was sustained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 10 Apr 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169894