The court established that a consent decree bars subsequent suits on the same matter, reinforcing the principles of res judicata and the limitations on challenging such decrees under the CPC.

ORDER :

(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE)

1.0. This is an appeal filed by the original plaintiffs under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 25.09.2018 passed below Exh.1 by the learned 6th Additional Senior Judge, Surat in Special Civil Suit No.488 of 2010. By the said judgment and order, the learned Judge has dismissed the suit as being clearly barred by law in view of provision of Order 23 Rule 3 A r/w Section 11 of the Code.

2.0. In nutshell, the case of the original plaintiffs as pleaded in the plaint is reproduced herein under:

2.1. The dispute pertains to the land bearing revenue survey no.189 paiki admeasuring 5463 sq mtrs which is now reduced to city survey no.1091 in Town Planning Scheme No,6 (Majura- Katodara), original plot no.58-A which is given Final Plot No.140 (728 sq mtrs) and Plot No.141 (500 sq mtrs) (hereinafter referred to as the “suit land”).

2.2. One Nathubhai Laxmidas Aahir was the original owner of the suit land who expired on 15.09.1932 leaving behind his legal heirs and representatives which include his widow Vahliben Nathubhai and daughter Bhikhi Nathubhai. Their names were mutated in the revenue record vide mutation entry no.170 dated 2.10.1932.

2.3. The heirs of the original owner have entered into a registered sale deed of the suit land on 25.12.1948 in favour of Dahyabhai Mavabhai (Original plaintiff no.1), Chaganbhai Mavabhai (Original Plaintiff No.2) and Naranbhai Mavabhai (Original plaintiff no.3). The aforesaid sale transaction was noticed in the revenue record vide mutation entry no.390 dated 25.1.1949. Thus, the names of the original plaintiffs as joint owners of the suit property was evident from the revenue record.

2.4. It is the case of the plaintiffs that since the original defendant no.1 Abbasbhai Mohsinbhai Hajuri was interfering with the possession of the original plaintiffs in respect of suit land, they were required to issue public notice dated 3.7.2010 in the local newspapers. The said notice was objected by the original defendant by reply dated 5.7.2010, thereby, denying the allegations made in the said notice. The plaintiffs have, therefore, averred in the plaint that the cause of action had arose for the plaintiffs to approach the Civil Court to seek declaration as well as for recovery of possession and injunction in respect of the suit land. The suit was filed on 20.10.2010 which was registered as Special Civil Suit No.488 of 2010.

2.5. The plaintiffs have sought for following prayers in the plaint:

“1. It is prayed to get the plaintiff a vacant, peaceful and direct possession of the old tenure land situated at Majura, Taluka Surat City bearing R.S. No.189 paiki, area admeasuring 5463 sq.m. as per revenue record and assessment Rs.10-75 paisa from the defendants, registered vide City Survey No.1091 in the register of City Survey Majura Ward, pursuant to implementation of T.P. Scheme No.6 (Majura- Khatodara) which was allotted original plot No.58/A, F. Plot Nos.140 and 141 aggregating both these final plots 728.00 sq.m. and 500 sq.m. respectively.

2. It is prayed to get us the plaintiff the usage fee from the date of the suit till the possession is given at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) per month from the defendant.

3. It is prayed to pass a permanent injunction declaring that, the defendants of this suit are not entitled to sell, lease, gift or rent the land in question or any share of the same by agreement or assigning the same in any other way to any third party. Moreover, the defendants shall not transfer the land in question by lease, gift, rent, agreement or transfer the same in any other way to any third party person.

Moreover, they shall not execute agreements by themselves or through their servants, agents, persons, attorneys etc. that would affect the ownership right of the plaintiffs in the land in question. Moreover, the defendants shall not transfer or assign the possession of the la