https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444541 Civil court jurisdiction remained available to decide title and grant declaratory relief over goods seized in customs and income-tax proceedings, because exclusion of ordinary jurisdiction is not readily inferred and the statutory seizure machinery did not determine proprietary title between third parties and the State. Ownership and possession were proved through consistent oral evidence, supported by admissions and the record, even without documentary title. Section 80 CPC notice was found valid as the statutory period had expired before suit. The separate claim for damages based on wrongful detention, malice or mala fide failed because such allegations must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. en-us Mon, 16 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Oct 2023 06:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444541 Civil court jurisdiction remained available to decide title and grant declaratory relief over goods seized in customs and income-tax proceedings, because exclusion of ordinary jurisdiction is not readily inferred and the statutory seizure machinery did not determine proprietary title between third parties and the State. Ownership and possession were proved through consistent oral evidence, supported by admissions and the record, even without documentary title. Section 80 CPC notice was found valid as the statutory period had expired before suit. The separate claim for damages based on wrongful detention, malice or mala fide failed because such allegations must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 16 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444541