IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment emphasizes the parameters of an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC and the conditions under which a court in second appeal may disturb findings of fact.

ORDER :

1. The appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, ‘the CPC’), by the appellant – original plaintiff, arising from the impugned judgment and decree dated 10.03.2022 passed by the learned 5th Additional District Judge, Vadodara in Regular Civil Appeal No.350 of 2019, confirming the judgment and decree dated 24.10.2019 passed by the learned 29th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara in Regular Civil Suit No.720 of 2003, dismissing the same.

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

2.1 The suit was filed by the appellant – original plaintiff for permanent injunction regarding Shop No.3 situated at First Floor, City Point, Vadodara (for short, ‘the suit property’), stating that the plaintiff – Govindram S. Bajaj has purchased the suit property from the defendants for a total sale consideration of Rs.71,000/-; and that the plaintiff has plaid an amount of Rs.21,000/- in cash and remaining balance amount of Rs.50,000/- by way of a cheque bearing No.199538 dated 28.05.2003 drawn on City Bank, Vadodara; and that the possession of the suit property long with its materials lying in it has been handed over to the plaintiff by the defendants; and that the plaintiff is doing business of ready-made garments in the name of ‘New Fashion’ in the suit property; and that the defendant has also given possession receipt as well as payment receipt (writing regarding sale of the suit property) in presence of advocate Shri Gopal Ramani and other witnesses; and that the defendants were absconders since few years pursuant to the offence of misappropriation of money; and that on 16.07.2023 in the evening, the defendants tried to enter into the suit property and gave threats to the plaintiff and asked to vacate the suit property, the plaintiff has filed the suit being Regular Civil Suit No.720 of 2003 before the learned trial Court.

2.2 The learned trial Court, after considering the various evidence – documentary as well as oral at Exh. 29, 46, 50, 51, 33, 52 to 56, 59, 69, 63 to 68 and 71 and framed the issues at Exh.23 and decided it accordingly and dismissed the suit, after hearing the parties, on merit.

2.3 Being aggrieved, the plaintiff has preferred an appeal being Regular Civil Appeal No.350 of 2019 before the learned appellate Court below, which is also dismissed, on merit.

2.4 It is these judgments and decrees, which are challenged by the appellant – original plaintiff before this Court in this second appeal.

3.1 Learned advocate Mr. Vedant Rajyaguru for learned advocate Mr. A.J. Yagnik for the appellant – original plaintiff has submitted that the appellant has physical possession of the suit property since 20.05.2003 after paying the total consideration; and that the possession receipt shows that the plaintiff had purchased the suit property from the defendants after paying full consideration and the possession of the suit property was also handed over on the very same day by the defendants to the plaintiff; and that it is in the knowledge of the defendants; and that the defendants have not filed any suit for restoration of the possession against the plaintiff; and that the principles of ‘possession follows the title’ should be ignored by the learned Courts below; and that the learned Courts below have erred in observing that the suit for only permanent injunction is not maintainable without declaration relief.

3.2 He has suggested the following substantial questions of law.

(i) Whether the learned trial Court and learned Appellate Court has committed substantial error of law in not property considering the documentary as well as oral evidences on record ?

(ii) Whether the learned trial Court and the learned Appellate Court have committed substantial error of law in misreading and misinterpreting the documentary as well as oral evidence on record while passing the impugned judgment and decree ?

(iii) Whether the learned trial Court and the learned Appellate Court has committed a substantial error of law in n