Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
AO/44020/2007 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
APPEAL
FROM ORDER No. 440 of 2007
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 15307 of 2007
=========================================================
HARIJAN
RATANBEN DAYABHAI & 6 - Appellant(s)
Versus
BALKRISHNA
CHHAGANLAL PARSANA & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
KANUBHAI I PATEL for
Appellant(s) : 1 - 7.
MR ASHISH SHAH for MR HARIN P RAVAL for
Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 26/09/2008
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
learned advocate Mr KI Patel for the appellants and learned advocate
Mr Ashish Shah for the respondents.
This
Appeal from Order is directed against the order dated 17.11.2007
passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot below
applications Exhs. 5 and 13 in Special Civil Suit No. 128 of 2007.
Appellants are the original plaintiffs. They have instituted the
said suit challenging the sale deed dated 04.08.2007 of agricultural
land of village Movaiya. They also prayed for interim injunction
against the defendants. Defendants, in turn, filed counter
application contending inter alia that the land was sold to them by
a registered sale deed and they are in possession thereof. The
learned Judge passed the impugned common order disposing of
applications Exhs. 5 and 13 on 17.11.2007. Exh.5 application was
rejected. Counter injunction in favour of the defendants was
granted. Exh.13 application was allowed.
Upon
perusal of the documents on record as well as upon consideration of
the contents thereof, it is clear that the appellants herein had put
the signatures/thumb impressions on the registered sale deed with
respect to suit land. They were also present before the Registrar
when the document was registered. This aspect has not been
controverted by the appellants also. What is, however, stated is
that they were made to send that document through misrepresentation
and further that they have not received the sale consideration of
Rs.9,44,000/- indicated in the sale deed.
When
the appellants had not disputed their signatures/thumb impressions
on the sale deed and also do not dispute being present before the
Registrar when the document was registered for the purpose of
granting or refusing interim injunction, these were the relevant
factors which were rightly taken into account by the Court below,
prima facie, believing that there was a valid registered sale deed
evidencing sale of the suit land by the appellants in favour of the
defendants. The learned Judge also on the basis of the registered
sale deed as well as other attendant documents and in the
circumstances found that the respondents original defendants were
in possession of the suit land.
To
both these conclusions, I have no reason to interfere.
Particularly, when the appellants do not dispute having signed the
documents and being present before the Registrar when the same was
registered, at this stage, it would be difficult to hold that no
such agreement actually took place or that they stated so in the
document, the defendants were not put in possession of the suit
land. In so far as the Trial Court rejected Exh.5 application of
the appellants and granted counter injunction to the defendants
present respondents is concerned, I find no illegality.
There
are certain aspects of the matter, however, which cannot be totally
lost sight of. The appellants have averred that they are illiterate
or semi-illiterate persons and were not fully aware about the
contents of the sale deed. They were made to put the
signatures/thumb impressions through misrepresentation. More
importantly and admittedly, the entire sale consideration of
Rs.9,44,000/- is stated to have been paid in cash. The appellants
have put forth the theory that out of poverty, they were required to
borrow a sum of Rs.3 lacs from the respondents few years back and
since they could not repay the same, the document in question was
brought into existence.
Considering
all these aspects of the matter, to avoid multiplicity of
proceedings and further litigation, while upholding the order under
challenge, it is directed that the respondents shall not
transfer, lease, assign the suit land in favour of any other person,
nor will they part with the possession thereof.
Subject
to above condition, the appeal is dismissed. In view of dismissal
of appeal, Civil Application No. 15307 of 207 does not survive and
is disposed of accordingly.
(AKIL
KURESHI, J.)
mrpandya*
Top