https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292026 A notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code was treated as substantially compliant because the plaintiffs were sufficiently identified, but the suit remained barred under Section 11 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act since the Government's vacation notice was treated as an appealable revenue order and the statutory appeals were not pursued. The plaintiffs also failed to prove title by original ownership, adverse possession, or the presumption under Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act, as their possession lacked a lawful origin and the presumption of lawful possession did not arise. Revenue records and surrounding circumstances established a ninety-nine-year Government lease that expired in March 1930, so the land became resumable on expiry. en-us Tue, 14 Oct 1941 00:00:00 +0630 Fri, 04 Dec 2020 15:26:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292026 A notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code was treated as substantially compliant because the plaintiffs were sufficiently identified, but the suit remained barred under Section 11 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act since the Government's vacation notice was treated as an appealable revenue order and the statutory appeals were not pursued. The plaintiffs also failed to prove title by original ownership, adverse possession, or the presumption under Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act, as their possession lacked a lawful origin and the presumption of lawful possession did not arise. Revenue records and surrounding circumstances established a ninety-nine-year Government lease that expired in March 1930, so the land became resumable on expiry. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 14 Oct 1941 00:00:00 +0630 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292026