Top of Form

Print

SA/160/2010
3/3 ORDER

IN THE
HIGH
COURT OF
GUJARAT
AT
AHMEDABAD

SECOND
APPEAL
No. 160
of 2010
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION
No. 7551 of
2010
In SECOND
APPEAL
No. 160
of 2010

=========
=========
=========
=========
=========
=========
===
LALITABEN
D/O
GANDABHAI
MATHURBHA
I VAGHRI
-
Appellant
(s)
Versus
 FADCHA
OFFICER
SHRI -
Defendant
(s)
=========
=========
=========
=========
=========
=========
===
Appearance
:
MR NK
MAJMUDAR for
Appellant(s
) : 1,
None for
Defendant(s
) : 1,
=========
=========
=========
=========
=========
=========
===
CORAM :

Date :
29/09/2010

ORAL
ORDER

The
appellant
has
preferred
this appeal
under
Section 100
of the Code
of Civil
Procedure
challenging
the
judgement
and decree
passed by
the trial
Court and
confirmed
by the first
appellate
Court on
the
substantial
questions of
law
indicated at
page H of
the memo
of appeal.

2. The
appellant
filed a suit
contending
that suit
property
belonged to
her father
Gandabhai
Mathurbhai
Vaghri and
after his
death she
has
become the
owner of
the said
property. It
was also
contended
that name
of her
mother
Diwaliben
was also
mutated in
the revenue
record and
the suit
property
was sold to
defendant
by power of
attorney
holder of
her mother
but she is in
actual
possession
of the suit
property
and the
defendant
was never
in
possession
of the
same. It
was also
contended
that as the
defendant
gave
threats to
handover
possession,
the Suit
was filed for
permanent
injunction.

3. It
appears
that the
original
defendant
did not
appear in
the Suit and
file written
statement
and the
appellant
original
plaintiff
gave
application
Exh. 26 to
join the
heirs of the
President of
the Society
on the
record of
the Suit and
thereafter
the heirs
were
brought on
record of
the case
but no
written
statement
was filed.
Thereafter,
the heirs
were
deleted and
liquidator of
the Society
was joined
as party
defendant
as the
Society
went into
liquidation.
The trial
Court after
recording
evidence,
dismissed
the Suit.
Therefore,
original
plaintiff
preferred
Regular
Civil Appeal
No. 47 of
2007 before
learned
Additional
District
Judge and
Presiding
Officer,
Fast Track
Court at
Anand. The
appeal
came to be
dismissed
by
judgement
dated
18.2.2010.
Being
aggrieved
by the said
decision,
the
appellant-
original
plaintiff has
preferred
this Second
Appeal on
the
substantial
questions of
law as
indicated in
the memo
of appeal.

4. I have
heard
learned
advocate
Mr.
Majmudar
for the
appellant.

5. It also
appears
that the suit
property
was sold to
the original
defendant
in the year
1970 and
registered
document
in that
regard was
produced at
Exh. 83.
Therefore,
the original
defendant
had
become the
owner and
occupier of
the suit
property
and the
appellant-
original
plaintiff had
no right,
title or
interest in
the suit
property but
she
committed
trespass
over the
suit
property.
The
documentar
y evidence
produced in
the trial
Court also
indicates
that with
express
consent of
the original
plaintiff
entry in the
record of
right was
made and
name of the
Society was
mutated.
Therefore,
plaintiff was
a
trespasser
and was not
entitled for
the reliefs
claimed in
the Suit and
the Courts
below were
justified in
passing the
impugned
judgements
.
6. In view of
the above,
both the
Courts
below were
justified in
passing the
impugned
judgement.
Substantial
questions of
law as
formulated
do not arise
for
consideratio
n by this
Court and
hence the
Second
Appeal is
required to
be
dismissed
and
accordingly
it is
dismissed
with no
order as to
costs.

As Second
Appeal is
dismissed,
the Civil
Application
stands
disposed of
accordingly.

(BANKIM
N. MEHTA,
J)

(pkn)

Top
Bottom of Form