IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
RAJENDRA M. SAREEN, J.
Jenabai Aamad Lohar – Appellant
Versus
Singhal Mahendra Mansang – Respondent
R/Second Appeal No. 543 Of 2022 With Civil Application (For Stay) No. 1 of 2022
Decided On : 04-05-2023
possession - property dispute - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 54, Contract Act - Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by Lrs. And others, AIR 2008 SC 2033, Kewal Krishan Vs. Rajesh Kumar and others, AIR 2022 SC 564
Fact of the Case:
The respondent sought possession of a property from the appellants, alleging that despite a sale deed, the appellants did not hand over possession. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent, which was confirmed by the first appellate court. The appellants filed a Second Appeal, challenging the concurrent findings of the lower courts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no infirmity in the concurrent findings of the lower courts and noted the appellants' failure to adduce evidence to support their claim that the sale deed was fraudulent, sham, or without consideration. The court emphasized the appellants' negligence and lack of vigilance in presenting their case.
Issues: The issues revolved around the possession of the property and the validity of the sale deed, with the appellants alleging fraud and lack of consideration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of adducing evidence to support claims and highlighted the appellants' failure to challenge the sale deed or raise objections in a timely manner. The court also noted that the appellants' absence and lack of diligence contributed to the dismissal of their claims.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was dismissed at the admission stage, as it lacked any substantial question of law and was devoid of merits both on facts and law.
ORDER :
1. Present Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellants – original defendants against the concurrent findings of the learned courts below arising out of the suit for getting vacant possession of the suit property from the defendants and mesne profit. The present Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgement and decree passed by the learned 5th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bhuj in Regular Civil Appeal No.10 of 2018 dated 11/7/2022, by which the learned first appellate court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgement and decree passed by the learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bhuj in Regular Civil Suit No.286 of 2002 dated 28/12/2017, by which the learned trial court decreed the suit in favour of the respondent plaintiff.
2. Factual matrix of the case is as under:
2.1. Non-agricultural land at Revenue Survey No. 829 in the Camp area of Central Bhuj in Jesthanagar bearing Plot No.27 admeasuring 246.9 sq.mtrs. in Ward No.30 Sheet No.204 is registered at entry no. 3636 in the City Survey office. A division of the said plot bearing no. 27/B paiki admeasuring 131.6 consists of three houses out of which House No.3 consists of two rooms, one kitchen and one veranda. The veranda consists of one latrine, bathroom and stair case towards roof. The said house was of ownership of the Appellant No.1.
2.2. As per the case of the respondent plaintiff, he was in contact with Appellant No.2, who happens to be brother of the Appellant No.1. The Appellant No.2 informed the Respondent that his sister is owning the aforesaid house and wants to sell the same, therefore, the Respondent showed his willingness to purchase the same and purchased the same vide registered sale deed dated 21.10.1997 by paying considering of Rs.55,000/-.
2.3. As per the case of the respondent plaintiff in the sale deed that the possession of the property has been handed over to the Respondent, however, the actual possession remained with the Appellants. It is alleged that when the Respondent asked the Appellants to handover the possession, the Appellants made an excuse that some of the belongings are in house and they would be handing over the possession within 10 days. However, even after passage 10 days the Appellants did not handover the possession to the Respondent and requested for one month's time.
2.4. As per the case of the respondent plaintiff despite repeated reminders the Appellants chose not to vacate the property, therefore, the Respondent vide registered notice dated 28.07.1998 called upon the Appellant No.1 to handover the possession of the property, however, the Appellant No.1 through its Advocate vide reply dated 19.08.1998 informed Respondent that she would handover the possession by 15.11.1998. However, the evenafter that the Appellant No.1 did not handover the possession. Therefore, the Respondent alongwith one Jayeshbhai went to the said house on 30.12.1998 to request the Appellant No.1 to handover the possession. At the said time the Appellant No.2 was present at the house and he threatened the Respondent that he will not get the possession and if he will ever try to take possession, the Appellant No.2 would finish him.
2.5. Therefore the respondent preferred Regular Civil Suit No. 286 of 2002 before the Learned Civil Court, Bhuj-Kachcch seeking relief possession of the suit property and seeking mesne profit of Rs.250/- per month from date of filing of suit till handing over of possession.
2.6. The learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bhuj vide judgement and decree dated 28/12/2017 decreed the Regular Civil Suit No.286 of 2002 in favour of the plaintiff – respondent herein.
2.7. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgement and decree passed by the learned trial court, the appellants – defendants preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.10 of 2018, which came to be dismissed by the learned 5th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bhuj vide judgement and decree dated 11/7/20
Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by Lrs. And others, reported in AIR 2008 SC 2033
Kewal Krishan Vs. Rajesh Kumar and others
Easwari Versus Parvathi and others
State of Haryana Versus Khalsa Motors Limited
C. Doddanarayana Reddy & Ors. Vs. C. Jayarama Reddy & Ors.
Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Anjuman-E-Ismail Madris-Un-Niswan (1999) 6 SCC 343
Ramanuja Naidu v. V. Kanniah Naidu (1996 3 SCC 392)
Navaneethammal v. Arjuna Chetty (1996 6 SCC 166)
Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitkibai Sopan Gujar & Ors.
Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari
State of Rajasthan v. Shiv Dayal
Rajeshwar Vishwanath Mamidwar & Ors. vs. Dashrath Narayan Chilwelkar & Ors.
The importance of presenting timely and substantiated evidence to support claims, and the consequences of negligence and lack of diligence in pursuing legal remedies.
Second Appeal is competent only if it involves, at the stage of admission, substantial question of law.
Sale - Validity - Defendants were not interested or they did not try to bring their case before court and lead evidence in support of their case to with respect to sale deed being sham, bogus or frau....
Concurrent findings of fact can only be interfered with if they are found to be perverse or based on no evidence. High Court's jurisdiction in Second Appeal is limited to substantial questions of law....
The possession is a pure question of fact, and the findings of fact recorded by the lower courts cannot be interfered with unless they are based on no evidence or are perverse.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of proving readiness and willingness to perform a contract for specific performance, as well as the limited scope of interference in concurrent findings of fact....
The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is limited to substantial questions of law, and adverse possession must be proven with evidence to claim ownership of government land.
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.