Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/187/1991 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 187 of 1991
With
FIRST
APPEAL No. 188 of 1991
For
Approval and Signature:
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 ?
=========================================================
ANSUYABEN
MAGANBHAI' & 1 - Appellant(s)
Versus
AMRATLAL
HIRJIBHAI PARMAR & 3 - Defendant(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
JR NANAVATI for
Appellant(s) : 1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4,1.2.5 - for Appellant(s)
: 2,
None for Defendant(s) : 1 - 2.
MR CK DIVAKARAN for
Defendant(s) : 3 -
4.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 05/07/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. Both
these appeals are directed against the common judgment and order
passed by the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in Civil Suits No.3494/1985
& 4920/1985 dated 19.11.1990 whereby, Civil Suit No.3494/1985 was
decreed and Civil Suit No.4920/1985 was rejected.
2. The
facts in brief are that the respondents herein, original plaintiff,
preferred Civil Suit No.3494/1985 against the appellant, original
defendants, before the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad for obtaining
perpetual injunction by way of restraining the defendants from
committing any encroachment over the land bearing survey no.843-8
situated in Paldi area of Ahmedabad City. The appellant herein (now
deceased) had also preferred suit being Civil Suit No.4920/1985
against the respondents herein seeking injunction by way of
restraining the defendants from interfering with his use and
occupation of the suit premises. After hearing both the sides, the
Court below decreed Civil Suit No.3494/1985 in favour of the
respondents herein and rejected Civil Suit No.4920/1985 preferred by
the appellant herein. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant has
preferred the present appeals.
3. Heard
learned counsel for both the sides and perused the documents on
record. After appreciating the evidence on record, the Court below
found that the rear doors in the suit premises had been subsequently
erected. The Court below found that the defendants, the appellants
herein, were attempting to make encroachment over the disputed land
and therefore, it was necessary that the plaintiffs are permitted to
erect a compound wall considering the fact that a major chunk of the
area of the shops of the defendants would be taken away in road
widening. Considering the above factual aspects, I am of the view
that the Court below has rightly decreed Civil Suit No.3494/1985 in
favour of the respondents-plaintiffs and rejected Civil Suit
No.4920/1985 preferred by the deceased appellant. I am in complete
agreement with the reasonings given by and the findings recorded by
the Court below in the impugned judgment and decree and hence, find
no reasons to interfere in these appeals.
4. For
the foregoing reasons, both the appeals are rejected.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.]
Pravin/*
Top