AKSHAY H. MEHTA, J.

( 1 ) THE present First Appeals and the Civil Applications arise from the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge [s. D. ] Veraval dated 19th July, 2003 in Special Civil Suit No. 204 of 2001 (old Special Civil Suit No. 6 of 1995 ). Appellants of First Appeal No. 1520 of 2003 are original defendants nos. 9 and 10 and applicants of Civil Application No. 6588 of 2003 in First Appeal No. 1520 of 2003 are original defendants nos. 1 to 8. The appellants of First Appeal No. 1690 of 2003 are the original plaintiffs and so are the applicants of Civil Application No. 6312 of 2003. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in this judgment by their original position in the suit. 1. 1. FIRST Appeal No. 1520 of 2003 has been admitted by this Court vide order dated 18th August, 2003. Civil Application No. 6588 of 2003 is filed for recalling the said order of admission on the ground that the First Appeal is not maintainable in this Court in the facts and circumstances stated in the said application. First Appeals Nos. 1520 of 2003 and 1690 of 2003 have been filed by the respective appellants challenging the aforesaid judgment and decree dismissing the suit. First Appeal No. 1690 of 2003 is pending admission. In view of the prayer sought in Civil Application No. 6588 of 2003 preliminary objection regarding maintainability of these appeals raised by counsel for respondents of First Appeal No. 1690 of 2003 Mr. P. J. Kanabar, both the First Appeals alongwith the Civil Application were required to be heard on the question of their maintainability and hence with the consent of the learned counsels for all the parties these maters were taken up for hearing on 18/09/2003. The issue regarding maintainability of First Appeals before this Court is now being decided by this common judgment.

( 2 ) THE plaintiffs had filed the aforesaid suit for declaration and perpetual injunction against defendants nos. 1 to 8 on the averments that the plaintiffs and defendants nos. 9 and 10 are the legal heirs of late Kamabhai Tejabhai. Plaintiff no. 1 and defendant no. 10 are the sons of late Kamabhai; whereas plaintiff nos. 2 to 5 are the daughters. Defendant no. 9 is the widow of late Kamabhai and defendants nos. 1 to 8 are the heirs and legal representatives of deceased Nanji Kanji and Jagjivan Nanji. According to the plaintiffs, their ancestor Kamabhai Tejabhai was the protected tenant of Gaekwad Agricultural Company from the days of erstwhile State of Baroda of the land bearing survey no. 165 and survey no. 166 of village Ghantvan. By virtue of provisions of section 64 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, Kamabhai Tejabhai received the said land in a sale. They came to know that the deceased ancestors of defendants nos. 1 to 8, Nanji and Jagjivan, got sale-deeds executed in their favour in respect of aforesaid lands admeasuring Acre 5 35 Guntha for a consideration of Rs. 14,00/= According to the plaintiffs neither Nanji nor Jagjivan nor defendants nos. 1 to 8 were having any agricultural land and that they were not agriculturists. In fact according to the plaintiffs, Nanji and Jagjivan were money lenders and they had nothing to do with agriculture. The plaintiffs have further averred that the land in question was the new tenure, which could not have been sold without obtaining the prior permission of the Collector. It is their say that upon the demise of Kama Teja the plaintiffs and defendants nos. 9 and 10 had inherited land bearing survey no. 166 admeasuring Acre 16 - 29 Guntha. It is averred that the plaintiffs came to know about the sale-deeds on 1 1/02/1985 when defendant no. 10 informed them about it. According to them, late Nanji and Jagjivan who were businessmen and by exercising their influence, they got the suit lands entered into the revenue records in their names. However, according to them, Jagjivan and Kanji and Nanji had never obstructed their possession of the suit lands. They have

Click Here to Read the rest of this document