GUJARAT HIGH COURT
C.L. Soni, J.
Velbai —Appellant
versus
Natha Harji Halai —Respondent
Appeal From Order No.8 of 2012; Civil Application No.1 of 2018, 2 of 2015, 2 of 2016, 3 of 2015, 3 of 2016
Decided on 13.12.2018
(B) Transfer of Property Act,1882 – Section 54 – Transfer of property – Under Transfer of Property Act, a purchaser cannot have a better title than what his vendor had – Without there being any physical formal partition of an undivided landed property, a co-sharer cannot put a vendee in possession although such a co-sharer may have a right to transfer his undivided share – Undivided share of co-sharer may be a subject-matter of sale but possession cannot be handed over to vendee unless property is partitioned by metes and bounds amicably and through mutual settlement or by a decree of Court – Claim of plaintiff that suit lands are ancestral and undivided joint Hindu family properties is highly disputed – Judge has on prima facie assessment of material on record found that suit lands do not prima facie appear to be ancestral and undivided joint Hindu family Properties and also on conduct of plaintiff found that plaintiff is not entitled to grant of equitable relief – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 18 to 21)
Appeal dismissed.
C.L. Soni, J.—The appeal is filed under Order XLIII of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (“the CPC”) against the order dated 04.11.2011 passed by learned 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bhuj (Kutch) below application Exh.5 in Special Civil Suit No.111 of 2011.
2. The appellant is the original plaintiff and the respondents are the original defendants in above suit. They shall be referred as per their original status in the suit. The plaintiff is the daughter of defendant No.1 and the sister of defendant No.2 to 4. The defendants No. 5 to 9 are the first purchasers of the suit lands and the defendant No.10 to 12 are the second purchasers of the suit lands.
3. In the above suit, the plaintiff has prayed to declare that the sale deed dated 17.04.2010 executed by the defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.5 to 9 is invalid, as it is false and bogus and the defendant no.1 has no right or authority to sell the suit lands belonging to joint Hindu family; to declare that the sale deed dated 12.01.2011 executed by the defendant no. 5 to 9 in favour of defendant no.10 to 12 is invalid, as it is also false; to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendant Nos.10 to 12 from selling, transferring, alienating or creating any charge on the suit lands and restraining the defendant No.10 to 14 from taking any proceedings for conversion of the suit lands to non-agriculture use.
4. The case of the plaintiff in her suit is that lands bearing Survey Nos.36/2 ad-measuring 0-79-00 Hectare-Are-Sq.mt, Survey No.37 ad-measuring 1-04-00 Hectare-Are-Sq.mts, survey No.40 admeasuring 3-49-00 Hectare-Are-Sq.mts, Survey No.42 ad-measuring 3-27-00 Hectare-Are-Sq.mts and Survey No.870/55 ad-measuring 0- 02-00 Hectare-Are-Sq.mts ( total ad-measuring 8-68-00 Hectare-AreSq.mts, referred as ‘the suit lands’) are ancestral and undivided properties of joint Hindu Family since the time of her grandfather and not of independent ownership of her father defendant No.1; that no partition or relinquishment from the suit lands has ever taken place, but the defendant No.1 got the sale deeds executed for the suit lands in his favour from Bhimji Parbat and Lalji Parbat who had no right or authority to sell the suit lands to the defendant No.1; that the defendant No.1 illegally acquired rights in the suit lands and in illegal manner he executed sale deed dated 17.04.2010 in favour of the defendant Nos.5 to 9 for consideration of Rs.38 lac and, thereafter, the defendant Nos.5 to 9 sold the suit lands to defendant Nos.10 to 12 by registered sale deed dated 12.01.2011 for consideration of Rs.85,90,000/- and thus, the suit lands have been in possession of the defendant Nos.10 to 12, which is not legal possession and that the defendant no.10 to 12 are not the bona fide purchasers of the suit lands. It is further case of the plaintiff that though Suit No.544 of 2008 for partition of suit lands is pending between the parties, still the above two sale deeds were executed for the suit lands causing prejudice to the rights of the plaintiff. It is stated that if the defendant Nos.10 to 12 get the suit lands converted to non-agricultural use, the plaintiff will be put to great hardship in getting her share from the suit lands.
5. In the above suit, the plaintiff filed application Exh.5 seeking to restrain the defendants No.10 to 12 from selling, transferring, alienating or in any manner creating charge on the suit lands and also from taking any proceedings to convert the suit lands to nonagricultural use and also restraining the defendant Nos.13 and 14 (the state authorities) from taking any proceedings for conversion of the suit lands to non-agricultural use. Learned Judge has rejected such application Exh.5 by impugned order.
6. Learned advocate Mr.Mehta for the plaintiff submitted that the suit lands are the ancestral properties held by her grandfather and his brothers and neither any partition of the suit lands had ever taken place nor the plaintiff has relinquished her rig
M.V.S. Manikayala Rao vs. M. Narasimhaswami and Ors.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.