Point of Law: Execution of decree – Review of judgment – Validity of - Judgment of Court is based has been reversed or modified by subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for review of such judgment.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI, J.

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 20.03.2019, passed in Execution Petition No. 1 of 2016, disposing of the said execution petition as decree was found to be satisfied, and the order dated 16.04.2019, passed in Review Petition No. 25 of 2019, by which, the said review petition came to be rejected as not maintainable in view of the provisions of section 114 and Order 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kapadwanj, Kheda.

Facts of the Case:

2. The matter has a chequered history. A land bearing revenue survey No. 158 paiki, city survey No. 6650, admeasuring about 100 sq. yards having boundaries situated in Kapadwanj Town was originally owned by Vohra Abdulhusein Tarwala and Aminaben, D/o. Abdulhusein Daudbhai. The suit property is a part of revenue survey No. 158, total admeasuring acre 1 and 4 gunthas, leaving the land acquired by the State Transport Corporation. A registered sale deed dated 10.09.1932, registered on 07.10.1932 with respect to the whole survey No. 158 in favour of on Desai Keshavlal Chhaganlal came to be executed by Vohra Abdeali Abdulhusein Tarwala and Aminaben D/o Abdulhusein Daudbhai for a consideration of Rs. 600/-. Thereafter, possession of the whole suit property was handed over to Desai Keshavlal Chhaganlal (now deceased) and since then, he was in possession of the same.

2.1 Desai Keshavlal Chhaganlal created a trust namely Desai Keshavlal Chhaganlal Trust, a Public Charitable Trust, registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, bearing registration No. A-1903 (BOMBAY) and thereafter, by virtue of a Trust Deed, the said trust became the owner of the suit property.

2.2 That, in 1967, Kachhiya Patel Ambalal Vadilal (now deceased) and Kachhiya Patel Arvindlal Vadilal, respondents herein, filed Regular Civil Suit No. 260/1967 before the Court of learned Civil Judge (J.D.) Kapadwanj, Kheda alleging that original owners have sold the suit property to them by way of a registered sale deed dated 12.07.1967 for a consideration of Rs. 2,500/- and alleged that the defendant Nos. 1 to 6 made encroachment over the south-east portion of the suit property and made kachcha construction over that portion and put up shops over it and took possession of that portion. They also sought relief for permanent injunction restraining all the defendants from interference of the possession of the plaintiffs in vacant portion of the suit property and also for mesne profit. The learned trial Court granted ad-interim injunction in favour of the original plaintiffs (respondents herein) in the suit. It is the case of the petitioners that though the trial Court had passed an order of maintaining status-quo, the original plaintiffs erected wooden structure on the open land of the suit property.

2.3 That, initially the present petitioners were not joined as party in the suit, however, subsequently, they came to be joined as defendant Nos. 7 and 8.

2.4 The suit tried by the trial Court concerned and eventually, after due appreciation and evaluation of the evidence on record and hearing the arguments of both the sides, the trial Court was pleased to dismiss the suit by judgment and decree dated 27.02.1973. Being aggrieved, the original plaintiffs-respondents herein filed Civil Appeal No. 78 of 1973 before the learned District Judge, Nadiad, The said appeal came to be dismissed by the first appellate Court by judgment and order dated 22.04.1975 against which, the original plaintiffs, respondents herein preferred Second Appeal No. 407 of 1975 before this Court. This Court, vide order dated 10.01.1980 set aside the judgment and decree dated 27.02.1973 passed by the trial Court and ordered to remand back the matter to the trial Court concerned with certain directions.

2.5 Against the aforesaid order dated 10.01.1980 passed by this Court in Second Appeal No. 407 of 1975, the origi