Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/13851/2009 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13851 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13852 of 2009
=========================================================
DUSHYANTSINH
PRAVINSINH RAOLJI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
ABDULKARIM
HAJIMAHAMMADHUSAIN LAKDAWALA & 5 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
HRIDAY BUCH for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 - 5.
MR
MM SAIYED for Respondent(s) : 1 - 5.
UNSERVED-EXPIRED (N) for
Respondent(s) : 6,
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for Respondent(s) :
6,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 17/01/2011
ORAL
ORDER
Both
these petitions arise out of a common judgment and order and hence,
they are disposed of by this common order.
1. By
way of these petitions, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set
aside the common judgment and order passed by the learned District
Judge, Narmada at Rajpipla in Misc. Civil Appeals No.34/2009 to
36/2009 dated 03.09.2009, whereby, the said appeals were dismissed
and the order passed by the trial Court in application below Exhibits
– 5, 15 & 16 in R.C.S. No.7/2009 dated 18.08.2009 came to
be confirmed.
2. The
facts in brief are that the petitioner, original plaintiff, had filed
R.C.S. No.7/2009 against the respondents, original defendants, before
the Court of learned Principal Sr. Civil Judge, Rajpipla. Along with
the said suit, the petitioner had also filed application Exhibit-5
for ad-interim injunction against the respondents. The respondents
appeared in the said suit and filed their written statement vide
Exhibit-15. The respondents had also claimed counter claim in the
written statement Exhibit-15 and thereby, claimed counter ad-interim
injunction against the petitioner. The respondents had also filed
application Exhibit-16 praying for vacation of ex-parte ad-interim
injunction granted in favour of the petitioner in application below
Exhibit-5.
3. The
trial Court heard all the three applications together and rejected
the same by way of common order passed below application Exhibit-5
dated 18.08.2009. The petitioner challenged the common order by way
of filing Misc. Appeals before the lower appellate Court. The lower
appellate Court, after considering the evidence on record, rejected
the appeals by way of common order dated 03.09.2009. The petitioner
has challenged the impugned judgment and order passed in Misc.
Appeals No.34/2009 & 35/2009 by way of filing the present
petitions.
4. Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents
on record. Before the Court below, it was the case of the petitioner
that the suit land was sold by one Nurmohammad to him for
Rs.11,11,786/- by way of an oral agreement to sell and that in
connection with the same, the petitioner had paid Rs.11,000/- to said
Nurmohammad towards Bana
pursuant to which the possession of suit land was handed over
to the petitioner. However, before the trial Court, said Nurmohammad
had not supported the aforesaid story of the petitioner. In the
Affidavit filed by said Nurmohammad vide Exhibit-39, it has been
categorically stated that he was not the Agent nor the Power of
Attorney holder of the defendants. He has denied that in respect of
the suit property he had made any oral agreement to sell in favour of
the petitioner and that he had accepted Rs.11,000/- towards Bana and
had handed over possession of the suit land to the petitioner. The
petitioner was not able to controvert the above by producing any
cogent oral or documentary evidence. The story put-forth by the
petitioner is not trustworthy in view of the fact that no one would
hand over possession of a property worth Rs.11,11,786/- by accepting
only Rs.11,000/-. The trial Court has based its case mainly on the
Affidavit filed by said Nurmohammad vide Exhibit-39. Considering the
facts of the case and the evidence on record, I am of the view that
the Courts below have rightly not believed the case of the
petitioner.
5. Apart
from the above, in the Village Form No.8/A, there is no mention of
the name of the petitioner in the revenue records in respect of the
suit land. Mere payment of revenue tax by the petitioner does not
make him the owner of the suit land. In view of the above discussion,
I am of the view that both the Courts below were completely justified
in rejecting the case of the petitioner. I am in complete agreement
with the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below and
hence, find no reasons to interfere in these petitions.
6. For
the foregoing reasons, the petitions are dismissed. Notice
is discharged. It is observed that if any application is preferred by
the petitioner for early hearing of the suit, the trial Court
concerned shall expedite the hearing and shall try to dispose of the
same as expeditiously as possible.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.]
Pravin/*
Top