A suit for injunction is not maintainable when the defendant disputes title, necessitating a comprehensive suit for declaration and partition.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP N. BHATT, J.

1. The present First Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is preferred by the appellant – original plaintiff, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 26.02.2024 passed by the learned City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, in Civil Suit No.810 of 2014.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

2.1 For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per their original status i.e. the Plaintiff and the Defendants.

2.2 The description of the suit property is as follows: T.P Scheme No.3, Municipal Ward No. 515, Final Plot No. 285, City Survey No. 2862 (Old Survey No. 325) having Tenement No. (i) 05150100100019, (ii) 0515010010002U, (iii) 05150100100035, (iv) 0515010010004Q, (v) 05150100100050, (vi) 0515010010006M, (vii) 0515010010007K, (viii) 05150100100081, (xi) 0515010010009G and (x) 05150100100010V situated at Sim: Khanpur, Moje: Shekhpur and District: Ahmedabad. The above-mentioned property was self-acquired property of the Plaintiff's ancestor namely Hargovandas Laldas. Furthermore, the person namely Hargovandas Laldas was married twice; the first marriage was with Ambaben and the second marriage was with Ichaben. That, from the wedlock with first wife namely Ambaben, one son namely Bechardas was born. Furthermore, the person namely Bhikhabhai was the son of Bechardas. It is pertinent to mention here that the present Plaintiff is the legal heir of the person namely Bhikhabhai. That, from the wedlock with the second wife namely Ichaben, one son namely Jivabhai was born. Furthermore, the person namely Natvarlal was the son of Jivabhai. It is pertinent to mention here that the present Defendant No.1 is the son of the person namely Natvarlal and the Defendant No.2-4 are the legal heirs of the other son of the person namely Natvarlal. That, the suit property was purchased by the Plaintiff's ancestor namely Hargovandas Laldas on the name of the second wife namely Ichaben. Furthermore, the suit property was purchased from the funds of the family and therefore all the legal heirs of Hargovandas Laldas have equal right and interest in the suit property.

2.3 After the death of the second wife of the Plaintiff's ancestor namely Hargovandas Laldas; only the names of the legal heirs of second wife namely Ichaben were mutated in the revenue records of the suit property. The Defendants have constructed shops in the suit property; wherein in one shop the Defendant No.1 is doing business and the other shops have been rented by the Defendants. Furthermore, when the Plaintiff demanded the share in the profit; the Defendants threatened to sell the suit property to the third party.

2.4 The Plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 25.12.2013 to the Defendants asking for the right, title and interest in the suit property. Furthermore, the Defendants sent the reply dated 18.12.2014 denying the same. Therefore, on 07.04.2014 the Plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 810 of 2014 before the Learned City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad seeking permanent injunction and restraining the Defendants, their agents, servants, representatives, etc. from transferring, assigning, alienating and / or dealing in any manner whatsoever with the suit property. Thereafter, the Defendants contested the said suit by filing Written Statement denying the aforesaid facts. Both the parties have led oral as well as documentary evidence to prove and disprove their respective case.

2.5 Thereafter, vide Judgment and Order dated 26.02.2024, the learned Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad was ple