IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 452 of 2024 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK =========================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No Yes ==========================================

INLAND REALITIES AND FINSTOCK PRIVATE LIMITED Versus ANIL M MUNSHI & ORS.

==========================================

Appearance:

MR SANDIP C SHAH(792) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR APURVA R KAPADIA(5012) for the Defendant(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Defendant(s) No. 2,3,4 ==========================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Date : 05/08/2025

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. ADMIT. Mr.Apurva Kapadia, learned counsel waives service of notice of admission on behalf of the respondent/s.

2. With the consensus of learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the present appeal is taken up for final hearing. Learned counsel for the appellant has supplied the paper-book compromising of the record of the trial Court and on perusal of the relevant order passed by the trial Court which is necessary to refer herein.

3. Present appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated

09.11.2023 passed by the learned Judge, Court No. 24, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad (hereinafter be referred to as “the trial Court”) in Civil Suit No. 4699 of 1998 whereby the trial Court dismissed the suit.

3.1 Brief facts giving rise to the present case are as under:-

3.2 It is the case of the appellant that the appellant is having ownership and possession of the property situated at third floor entirely admeasuring 7330 square feet carpet area in the property known as Abhijay Complex in Final Plot No. 251, T.P. Scheme No.3 in the city of Ahmedabad (hereinafter be referred to as “the suit property”) and the possession of the suit property was handed over to the appellant by the respondents and since then the appellant has become the owner of the suit property. It is the case of the appellant that the respondents were trying to take the possession of the suit property forcibly and trying to get entered the third party illegally and also trying to sell the suit property to the third party. It is further the case of the appellant that the appellant issued notice to the respondents and the respondents were trying to grab the possession of the suit property forcibly from the appellant. It is the case of the appellant that the appellant filed the suit before the trial Court seeking to restrain the respondents, their men, servants, agents etc from taking the possession of the suit property forcibly from it without following due procedure of law.

3.3 That the respondents have filed the written statement at Exhibit

14 wherein they have denied all the contentions made in the plaint.

3.4 That after hearing the parties and considering the evidence, the trial Court framed the issues at Exhibit 25, which reads thus:-

(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit property is owned by them and the defendants handed over the possession of the property on date 24.12.1997?

(2) Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant nos.2, 3 & 4 are association and the plaintiff has been members of the same?

(3) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants are trying to usurp the possession of the suit premises forcibly?

(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the relief as claimed for?

(5) What order and decree?

3.5 The trial Court answered the aforesaid issues in the negative.

3.6 The trial Court has, after evaluating the evidence on record and hearing the respective parties, dismissed the suit.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

5. Heard Mr.Sandeep Shah, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Apurva Kapadia, learned counsel for the respondent/s. Perused the material on record.

6. Mr.Shah, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted the same facts which are narrated in t