The validity of the sale deed, possession of the land, and the maintenance of the suit by the plaintiff as 'Karta' of the Hindu undivided family were the central legal points established in the judgment.

ORDER :

1. Advocate Mr. H.P. Baxi for the appellants, who were the original defendants in Regular Civil Suit No.57 of 2011, contends that on dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff had preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.40 of 2019, which came to be allowed on 29.09.2023, and when there is no concurrent finding of both the courts, then Second Appeal is required to be admitted, since the very cause of two contrary observations would raise a substantial question of law and facts.

2. Advocate Mr. Baxi submitted that the plaintiff cannot succeed on the weakness of the defendants, and further stated that plaintiff had no right to file the suit as a Manager of Hindu undivided family, since he is a single male member. Mr. Baxi further stated that the sale deed on which reliance had been placed, was not produced before the trial Court and only a photocopy came to be exhibited; thus, stated that the attestation and execution of the original was required to be proved, and when original sale deed is not on record, the same cannot be believed. Advocate Mr. Baxi further submitted that the sale deed relied upon by the plaintiff does not suggest that the possession of the suit land followed the title, as claimed by the plaintiff.

3. Advocate Mr. Baxi stated that revenue entries have no prima facie value and, if at all, the family arrangement, which is relied upon, is to be considered, then it requires compulsory registration, which has not been so in the present matter. The core issues have not been decided by the appellate Court and the reasoned order of the trial Court has been set aside, and the facts, which were not recorded, have been considered.

4. Advocate Mr. Baxi has relied upon the following judgments:

(i) in case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Shiv Dayal & Anr. in Civil Appeal No.7363 of 2000

(ii) Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P.Buchi Reddy, reported in AIR 2008 SC 2033

(iii) Nazir Mohamed Vs. J.Kamala, reported in AIR 2020 SC 4321

(iv) K.N. Nagarajappa & Ors. Vs. H.Narasimha Reddy

(v) Narayan Sitaramji Badwaik (Dead) Thr. Lrs. Vs. Bisaram And Ors.

(vi) John Mithalal Desai Vs. Dineshbhai K.vora, reported in LAWS (GJH) 1997 (8) 14

(vii) Ramji Daywala And Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Invest Import, reported in LAWS (SC) 1980 (10) 23

(viii) Dina Ji Vs. Daddi, reported in LAWS (SC) 1989 (11) 1

(ix) Union of India And Ors. Vs. Ram Lakhan Sharma, reported in LAWS (SC) 2018 76

(x) Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. Vs. Rupdevsinhji Dolatsinhji Gohil, reported in LAWS (GJH) 2021 (1) 52

(xi) Patel Ramanbhai Mathurbhai Vs. Govindbhai Chhotabhai Patel And Ors., reported in LAWS (GJH) 2018 (9) 20, to contend that this Court is required to frame substantial questions of law prima facie on the ground of contrary judgments of both the courts.

5. Countering the arguments, Advocate Mr. N.V. Gandhi submitted that the case of the defendants is not on the ground that sale deed has not been executed, while the dispute is raised regarding the documents, which has been produced in the form of certified copy. Advocate Mr. Gandhi submitted that the deposition during the course of the trial requires consideration, since when the plaintiff had stepped into the witness box, he had brought the originals before the Court, and such fact has been noted in the trial proceedings, and on observing so the certified copy was put in evidence at Exh.45.

5.1 Advocate Mr. Gandhi submitted that the knowledge of execution of sale deed had not for the very first time known to the defendants, since earlier in proceedings under section 73AA(3) in case before the Deputy Collector as 128/95 and 132/95, the Deputy Collector, L&D, Vyara at Surat in his judgment has recorded about the sale deed dated 13.04.1978. Mr. Gandhi further submitted that one of the vendor Manuben i.e. widow of Babubhai Govindbhai has admitted by way of deposition of the property sold to the father of the plaintiff. Mr. Gandhi submitted that the provisions of section 73AA of the Gujarat Land revenue Code, 1879 came into force on 01.02.1981, and,