The court ruled that a plaintiff claiming ownership by adverse possession must substantiate this claim with evidence, and the trial court did not err in rejecting the application to dismiss the plaint based on lack of evidence.

JUDGEMENT

1. As the issue involved in these applications is similar, all these applications are heard together and are being decided by this common order.

2. All these Civil Revision Applications are filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) by the applicant – original defendant no.1, wherein the applicant – Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation has challenged the order dated 06.10.2020 passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Modasa, whereby the application filed by the applicant under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code came to be rejected.

3. Looking to the issue involved in the matters, learned advocates appearing for the parties have jointly requested that all these applications be taken up for final disposal at an admission stage.

4. For the sake of convenience, facts narrated in Civil Revision Application No.46/2021 are considered, which are as under,

4.1 The applicant herein is the original defendant no.1 in the suit filed by the opponent no.1 – original plaintiff i.e. Regular Civil Suit No.16/2020 before the court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Modasa, which is filed for declaration and permanent injunction and for declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the land bearing Survey No.56 pk. situated in the sim of Village : Meghraj, Taluka : Meghraj (hereinafter referred to as “the land in question”) by way of adverse possession. It is stated that the plaintiff is running a shop in the land in question and is in possession of the said land since last 60 years. It is further stated in the plaint that the suit came to be filed by the original owner viz., Doshi Punamchand Chhabildas and others against the defendant no.1 as well as other defendant. The said suit came to be rejected, against which, the original owner preferred Appeal before the Appellate Court, which came to be dismissed.

In the said proceeding, the plaintiff was not joined as party defendant and, therefore, they were not aware about the judgment and order passed by the concerned Court in the said proceeding.

4.2 The present applicant – original defendant no.1 filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code for rejection of plaint and under Order 14, Rule 2 of the Code to decide the suit on preliminary issue. In the aforesaid application, it is stated that the plaintiff has failed to point out cause of action in the plaint and the plaintiff has failed to place on record the documentary evidence in support of the contention that they are in possession of the land in question since last 60 years and, therefore, the plaint filed by the plaintiff be rejected.

4.3 The concerned trial court, vide impugned order dated 06.10.2020, rejected the application, Exh.12 filed by the applicant – original defendant, therefore, the applicant has filed the present Revision Application.

5. Heard learned advocate, Mr. H.S. Munshaw for the applicant and learned advocate, Mr. R.D. Kinariwala for the opponent no.1.

6. Learned advocate for the applicant has mainly contended that the plaintiff – original opponent no.1 herein has failed to produce the documentary evidence along with the plaint in support of the contention that the plaintiff is in possession of the land in question since last 60 years, in fact, the plaintiff is an encroacher and, therefore in absence of any documentary evidence placed before the trial court, the pla