IMPORTANT POINT
When payment of sale consideration is alleged to have been paid by cash then it is incumbent on part of party to satisfy aspect of payment of a huge amount by cash by producing necessary documentary evidence like Passbook of bank or source of amount.

ORDER (COMMON ORAL)

Since the parties and subject matter of the suit involved in the present appeals are identical in nature, hence, at the request of learned advocates for the parties, the matters are taken up for final consideration and Second Appeal No. 386 of 2018 is considered as lead matter and all the matters are heard together.

2.1 The present Second Appeal No.386 of 2018 is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”) by the present appellant – original plaintiff challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.06.2018 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.19 of 2016 by the learned 8th Addl. District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), by which the judgment and decree dated 06.04.2016 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.209 of 2009 has been confirmed, which was dismissed by the learned 4th Addl. Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), which was filed for specific performance of a writing dated 02.02.1994.

2.2 The present Second Appeal No.387 of 2018 is filed under Section 100 of the Code, by the present appellant– original defendant challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.06.2018 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.20 of 2016 by the learned 8th Addl. District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), by which the judgment and decree dated 06.04.2016 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.112 of 2009 has been dismissed, which was allowed by the learned 4th Addl. Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), which was filed for declaration and injunction.

3. Brief facts of the case as per the case of the appellant in Second Appeal No.386 of 2018 are as such that the appellant original plaintiff has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 209/2009 in the Court of Ld. 4th Additional Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur, Ahmedabad for specific performance of a writing dated 2/2/1994. The Ld. 4th Additional Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) by his judgment and decree dated 6/4/2016, dismissed the said suit. That against the said judgment and decree dated 6/4/2016, the appellant original plaintiff has preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 19/2016 in the Court of Ld. 9th Additional District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) and the Ld. 8th Additional District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) by his judgment and decree dated 30/6/2018, dismissed the said appeal. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with both the judgments and decree passed by the Ld. Trial Judge and the Appellate Judge, the appellant original plaintiff preferred this appeal.

4. Heard Mr. P.P. Kasvala, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. K.V. Shelat, the learned counsel for the respondents.

5. The suggested substantial questions of law as as framed in paragraph 5 of memo of the present appeal are as under:

“(a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, both the Lower Courts have substantially erred in not believing and holding that the possession of the appellant-plaintiff in the suit property was since the year 1960 and therefore, he has become owner of the suit land by virtue of adverse possession?

(b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, both the lower courts have substantially erred in holding that the document of writings in question are the forged documents in absence of any substantial evidence?

(c) That both substantially the erred courts lower in holding have that defendants are in possession of the suit property by virtue of the revenue record?”

6. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that both the judgments and decree passed by the both the courts below are contrary to the law and evidence on record, and have not properly appreciated the evidence on record and that has resulted into miscarriage of justice. Furthermore, he has submitted that both the lower courts ought to have seen that the appellant was in possession of the suit land since 1960 and thereafter, the deceased - Vishnuprasad Manibhai Gor had executed a writing dated 2.2.1994 in favour of the appellant and an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- was paid by the appellant. F