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.