IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Sandeep N. Bhatt, J.
Khushmanbhai Maganbhai Patel – Petitioner
Versus
Kusumben Wd/o Jerambhai Maganbhai Patel – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 3407 of 2023
Decided On : 31-03-2023
Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Order 43 - Rule 1 - Charitable Endowments Act, 1890 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Whether the deed involved in this litigation is relinquishment deed or family arrangement, which can be proved after completion of trial by leading cogent and convincing evidence by parties - Whether deed involved in this litigation is relinquishment deed or family arrangement, which can be proved after the completion of trial by leading cogent and convincing evidence by the parties – Held, Court of opinion that prima facie the approach of lower appellate Court is not supported by the facts of present case and position of law and therefore, learned lower appellate Court has erred in believing that document is relinquish deed without waiting for full fledged trial by which nature of deed as well as rights of parties can be proved by leading proper and convincing evidence – Ends of justice would be met and rights of both parties would be protected if impugned judgment and order is modified by directing present petitioners to seek prior permission of learned trial Court if petitioners want to enter into any transaction by way of sale or transfer or alienate to third party or create any third party right, by replacing the direction in order granted by learned lower appellate Court which is impugned in present petition - Petition is disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Learned advocate Mr.Manan Shah waives service of notice of rule for respondents.
2. The present petition is filed with the following prayers:
(b) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the implementation, execution and operation of the impugned order below Exh.33, dated 21.11.2022 in Misc.Civil Appeal No.5 of 2018 Annex.A Colly.
(c) xxxx”
3. The brief facts leading to filing of this petition are as under:
3.1 It is the case of the petitioners that the land bearing survey no.225/2, block no.196, village Kumbhariya, Dist.Surat (hereinafter referred to as `the suit property’) was originally owned by Maganbhai Prabhubhai Patel, who died intestate on 24.10.1993, who had three sons and four daughters.
3.2 It is the say of the petitioners that in view of family settlement and arrangement at the relevant point of time, the suit land came to the share of the present petitioners-original defendant nos.1 and 2 and the procedure of heirship was carried out and the names of other heirs were deleted and they are possessing the suit property as absolute owners since 2001.
3.3 It is the say of the petitioners that after almost 16 years, the respondent nos.1 and 2- original plaintiffs preferred civil suit claiming share and partition of the suit property. It is submitted injunction application Exh.5 was preferred along with the suit being Regular Civil Suit No.347 of 2016, which came to be rejected vide order dated 6.1.2018 by 9th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat.
3.4 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order of rejection, respondent nos.1 and 2-original plaintiffs preferred Misc.Civil Appeal No.5 of 2018, which was allowed by the 12th Additional District Judge, Surat, vide order dated 21.11.2022 below Exh.33.
3.5 It is against this order, the present petition is filed by the original defendant nos.1 and 2.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr.Amit Thakkar appearing with learned advocate Mr.Sagar J Shah for the petitioners and learned senior advocate Mr.Dhaval Dave appearing with learned advocate Mr.Manan Shah for the respondents.
4.1 Learned advocate Mr.Amit Thakkar submitted that the learned trial Court has considered the case for the purpose of injunction application below Exh.5 in an appropriate manner and has rejected the application for interim injunction filed by the plaintiff vide order dated 6.1.2018. The learned lower appellate Court, while considering the Misc.Civil Appeal No.5 of 2018, has considered the same after almost delay of four years and vide order dated 21.11.2022 application at Exh.5 filed in Regular Civil Suit No.347 of 2016 is allowed and the defendant no.1 is restrained from creating any interest/title of any third party and restrained from alienating the suit property in any manner during the pendency of the present suit. He has submitted that this order is passed almost at the fag end of the trial when the trial is already proceeded and evidence is already recorded of the parties.
4.2 He has submitted that the learned lower appellate court has erred in exercising powers under Order 43 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code `CPC’ for short) at this belated stage and not properly considered the facts and circumstances of the present case; that the learned lower appellate court has erred in presuming that the plaintiffs are co-sharers and on that basis erred in holding that co-sharer always remained in possession of the joint land as representative of other co-sharers, there is no ouster of the possession of any co-sharer from any joint land and there is always deemed possession of the co-sharer upon the joint land until and unl
Celina Coelho Pereira (Ms) and Others v. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar and Others
Dalpat Kumar and Anr. V/s. Prahlad Singh and Ors.
Dev Prakash and Another V/s Indra and Others
Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd.
Garment Craft V/s Prakash Chand Goel (2022) 4 SCC 181
Kale v. Dy. Director of Consolidation
Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.) Faridkot V/s Baldev Dass
Mohd.Yunus V/s Mohd.Mustaqim and Others
S. Shanmugam Pillai and Others v. K. Shanmugam Pillai and Others
State of Maharashtra V/ s. Digambar
Subraya M.N. versus vittala M.N.
Thamma Venkata Subbamma versus Thamma Rattamma
Thulasidhara and another V/s Narayanappa and Others
Veetrag Holding Co.Ltd. V/s Gujarat State Textile Corporation Ltd.
Yellapu Uma Maheswari and Another V/s Buddha Jagadheeswara Rao and Others
Family settlement must be a bona fide one so as to resolve family disputes and rival claims by a fair and equitable division.
An unregistered document that creates or extinguishes rights in immovable property for the first time requires mandatory registration. If such a document is the sole basis of a suit and lacks registr....
Existence of an unregistered family arrangement deed does not confer partition rights absent proper registration and stamp duty where required by law.
Oral family settlements are valid and require no registration if acknowledged by all parties, and prior admissions bind parties in subsequent related suits.
The court upheld findings based on revenue records and family settlements, and dismissed the writ petitions.
Point of law : Family property - Settlement - Admission - Statement made in the earlier plaint constitutes an admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. Thus, the Plaintiffs would be bound by the said adm....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility and validity of a Family Settlement Deed, emphasizing that it does not require registration if it does not create or extinguish a....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.