IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that subsequent purchasers must establish themselves as bona fide purchasers, and the existence of a prior registered sale deed raises questions about the title and possession of the land.

ORDER :

1. The present appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the CPC’), by the appellants – original defendants No.3 to 7, arises from the impugned judgment and decree dated 17.01.2023 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Mahisagar at Lunawada in Regular Civil Appeal No.22 of 2019, confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.06.2019 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Lunawada in Regular Civil Suit No.14 of 2017, which is allowed.

2. The brief facts of the present case are as under :

2.1 Originally, the land being Survey No.103 situated at Mouje – Village Chatkabeli, Tal. & District : Lunawada (for short ‘the land in question’) was in the name of deceased Chimanlal Maganlal Trivedi. He has transferred the land in question to his one of the sons viz., Arunkumar Chimanlal Trivedi by way of a registered Will and entry to that effect has been mutated in the revenue record on 05.07.2004. There is no dispute about the same.

2.2 Said Arunkumar has sold the land in question to his two real brothers viz., Narendrakumar Chimanlal Trivedi and Anilkumar Chimanlal Trivedi by way of a registered sale deed No.1320 on 02.12.2005 for consideration of Rs.11,000/-.

2.3 Since both these brothers – purchasers were residing out of Village : Chatkabeli and the seller – Arunkumar is residing there, said Arunkumar looked after the affairs of the land in question thereafter.

2.4 When it came to mutate in the revenue entry regarding the sale deed, said Arunkumar has raised objections qua mutation of revenue entry of the sale deed, but since they are the real brothers, compromise was taken place and said Arunkumar has withdrawn his objections.

2.5 The land in question was again sold by said Arunkumar to defendants No.3 to 7, who are third persons and resident of said village, by way of a registered sale deed No.1220 on 30.07.2015 and taken sale consideration.

2.6 Arunkumar died on 18.11.2016. Original defendants No.1 and 2 are the heirs of Arunkumar, who happens to be the nephew of original plaintiffs.

2.7 The registered sale deed No.1320 dated 02.12.2005 executed by and between Arunkumar and his real brothers is neither cancelled nor Arunkumar has approached any Civil Court for cancellation of said registered sale deed till date.

2.8 After second sale deed in favour of defendants No.3 to 7 – present appellants, they have tried to get possession of the land in question from the erstwhile purchasers – original plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs – first purchasers have filed a suit being Regular Civil Suit No.14 of 2017 before the learned trial Court for declaration and cancellation of sale deed executed by Arunkumar in favour of defendants No.3 to 7 dated 30.07.2015, which is subsequent to their sale deed dated 02.12.2005.

2.9 The learned trial Court has, after considering the rival submissions and various evidence on record, allowed the suit and cancelled the subsequent registered sale deed dated 30.07.2015 executed in favour of defendants No.3 to 7.

2.10 Being aggrieved, defendants No.3 to 7 have filed an appeal being Regular Civil Appeal No.22 of 2019 before the learned appellate Court below, which is dismissed by the learned appellate Court below, on merit.

2.11 Being aggrieved, defendant No.1 – Jitendrabhai, one of the legal heirs of deceased Arunkumar has also filed an appeal being Regular Civil Appeal No.3 of 2020, which is also dismissed by the learned appellate Court below, on merit.

2.12 It is these judgments and decrees impugned which are challenged by defendants No.3 to 7 before this Court in this appeal.

3. Heard learned advocates.

4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Vijal P. Desai for the appellants – original defendants No.3 to 7 has submitted that both the Courts below have materially erred in not appreciating the evidences and materials produced before it in their true spirit and perspective. He has further submitted that at the time of second sale deed, the name of Arunkumar was there in the revenu