CHAMPAKLAL GIRDHARLAL Vs. GOVINDBHAI KHIMJIBHAI BHARWAD
LAWS(GJH)-2013-9-21
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on September 16,2013

Champaklal Girdharlal Appellant
VERSUS
Govindbhai Khimjibhai Bharwad Respondents




JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THE challenge in this petition is to the order dated 20.03.2012, passed by the learned 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat ("the Trial Court" for short) below the application at Exhibit101, in Regular Civil Suit No.541/2008, whereby, the said application filed by the petitioner for being joined as party defendant to the suit, has been rejected.
(2.)BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case, relevant for the decision of the petition are that the original plaintiffs, respondents Nos.1 to 6 herein filed the abovementioned suit against respondents Nos.7 to 10 herein, (defendants in the suit) interalia, praying for a declaration to the effect that they are the owners of the suit property and that the defendants should give clear title and peaceful possession of the suit property to them. It is further prayed that respondents Nos.7 to 9 herein (defendants Nos.1 to 3) should be restrained from giving the possession of the suit property to any other person. Respondents Nos.7 to 9 were originally the owners of the suit property. The said respondents had taken a loan from Vanj Seva Sahkari Mandali Limited by mortgaging the suit property. As the loan was not repaid by them, the property came to be sold through public auction, on 29.04.1975. Respondent No.10 (defendant No.4) purchased the suit property in the public auction for a consideration of Rs.3,75,000/. Mutation entries were effected in the revenue records and the name of respondent No.4 was entered therein. Respondent No.4 formed plots on the land and obtained permission to construct thereupon from the Gram Panchayat, on 06.02.1981. The plots were thereafter allotted to various persons.
The petitioner is a third party. As per the case set out by him, his father Girdharlal Govindbhai was declared as a protected tenant of the suit land ever since the year 19381939. Entry No.379, to that effect, was mutated in the revenue record on 21.01.1948. According to the petitioner, his father had been cultivating the land and the possession was with him. He expired on 03.01.1969 and the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue record vide mutation entry No.814 dated 27.02.1969. It is the assertion of the petitioner that he is in cultivation, occupation and possession of the suit property till date, without any hindrance.

(3.)RESPONDENTS Nos.1 to 6 (the plaintiffs) filed the suit for obtaining a clear and marketable title and vacant possession of their plots from respondents Nos.7 to 10 and for restraining respondents Nos.7 to 9, from creating third party rights over the suit property. In the above background, the petitioner filed the application at Exhibit101, that has been rejected vide the impugned order, giving rise to the filing of the present petition.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.