The court emphasized that informal arrangements accepted and acted upon cannot later be disputed without a specific challenge, reinforcing the legal standing of bona fide purchasers regardless of subsequent allegations of fraud.

JUDGMENT :

NIRAL R. MEHTA, J.

1. Present First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the Code’), at the instance of appellants, original plaintiffs, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.8.2018 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ankleshwar, whereby the suit for declaration, permanent injunction and cancellation of the sale deed filed by the original plaintiff was dismissed with costs.

2. The brief facts of the case can be stated as under :

2.1 Shri Shashikant Ganpatbhai Patel, the original plaintiff instituted Special Civil Suit No.93 of 2013 and during the pendency of the said suit, he died and, therefore, the appellant Nos.1.1 and 1.2 being his heirs, were brought on record. The suit was for declaration, permanent injunction and cancellation of the sale deed on the ground that the original plaintiff was the owner of the suit property and the respondent No.1 does not derive any right, title and interest on the basis of the partition deed, writing executed in his favour by the plaintiffs and that all the documents are forged, fabricated and illegal. The declaration was sought to the effect that the registered sale deed dated 4.1.2013 executed by the respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.2 is illegal, null and void and that the respondent No.2 does not derive any right, title and interest in the suit property. The permanent injunction was accordingly sought restraining the defendants from causing any hindrance in the ownership right and the possession of the suit property and forcibly taking the possession.

2.2 Upon service of summons, the respondents – original defendants appeared and filed the written statement at Exh.15 and Exh.13 respectively, denying, inter alia, the contentions of the appellants – original plaintiffs.

2.3 The trial court, having considered the pleadings, framed the issues below Exh.46 as under :

“1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is owner and occupant of the suit property ?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant no. 1 has cheated him and has taken signatures on blank papers, which was latter misused and the suit properties are entered in the name of defendant no.1?

3. Whether plaintiff proves that without any right and title defendant no. 1 has executed registered sale deed (of agricultural land survey no. 90/A) no.6 dated 4th January, 2013 which is illegal and void ?

4. Whether the plaintiff proves that the pedigree, Panchakyash, heir's statements, consent, family arrangement (partition) etc. documents are fraudulently made out by the defendant no. 1, which are not binding to him?

5. Whether the plaintiff proves that the revenue record's extract entry no. 2404 dated 30th May, 2011 is entered without his consent and knowledge in favour of defendant no. 1 in collusion with revenue officers?

6. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant no. 1 has created fraudulent documents and made out extract entry, therefore defendant no. 1 has not right and title to execute sale deed to defendant no. 2 even though defendant no. 1 has executed registered sale deed so, extract entry and challenged sale deed in favour of defendant no. 2 is not binding to him?

7. Whether the defendant no. 2 proves that plaintiff, his family members including the heirs have released their right in favour of defendant no. 1. While executing statements, panchakyash before the revenue accountant and defendant no.1 became owner and occupant of the suit property?

8. Whether the defendant no. 2 proves that he has handed over all the consideration amount to the owner and legally he has purchased property from the owner i.e. defendant no