Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 8561
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.Y. KOGJE, N.S. SANJAY GOWDA, JJ
REVABEN WD/O NATHUBHAI LALABHAI & ORS. – Appellant
Versus
DHANSUKHBHAI NATHUBHAI PATEL & ORS. – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1129 of 2012
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR. SUDHIR NANAVATI, MR. HARSHADRAY A DAVE
For the Respondents: MR. JIGAR M PATEL, MR. NV GANDHI, MR. PAWAN A BAROT, MR. PRAKASH JANI, MR. VINAY B VISHEN
Withdrawal of appeal does not affect existing rights of co-defendants concerning separate land interests.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code - Withdrawal of Appeal - Appeal to the High Court against judgment and decree granting permanent injunction concerning property rights - The plaintiffs' suit was partly allowed, affirming that defendants had no rights or authority over the suit land. Defendants' purported deeds were held void due to lack of authority under applicable tenancy laws. (Paras 1, 6, 10)
(B) Permanent Injunction - The court emphasizes ownership rights and affirms that illegal transfers or claims without standing are not permissible. (Paras 1.1, 10)
Facts of the case:
The case involves property ownership disputes between plaintiffs and defendants concerning several survey numbers, with past transactions and claimed interests forming the basis of the dispute.
Findings of Court:
The appeal was allowed to be withdrawn without affecting the rights of other registered parties, maintaining the status quo around property rights.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the withdrawal of the appeal against certain respondents affected ongoing disputes over land ownership.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the current appeal's withdrawal, while affirming ownership determinations, does not prejudice other parties' rights connected to different survey numbers.
Result: Appeal stands disposed of as withdrawn.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's findings affirm existing property claims and prevent unlawful transfers. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. appeal withdrawal processed in light of settlement reached between parties. (Para 6 , 8) |
| 3. withdrawal does not impede rights of other property claimants. (Para 10 , 11) |
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA Date : 11/09/2025 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE)
ORDER IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1129 OF 2012
1. The Appeal is preferred against judgment and decree dated 31st December, 2011 passed by Civil Court, Surat in Special Civil Suit No.183 of 2009, wherein suit has been partly allowed. Operative part of the order is as under:
“A permanent injunction is granted to the effect that the plaintiffs who are the owners, power of attorney holders and occupants of the suit property bearing Survey Nos.837, 863, 897 and 244 and the defendants Nos.1 to 6 have no right, share, interest, possession or occupancy in the said land and they do not have any right or authority to transfer the said land by way of sale, mortgage, gift or lease, or to commit any act which would cause obstruction or hindrance to possession, occupancy or use of the plaintiffs. The Will dated 31-03-1997 is held to be void, non est and nullity. Further, the Memorandum of Understanding executed on 03-09-1998 with respect to the same survey numbers, being contrary to law, is also held to be void. Further, the sale-deed executed by the defendants Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the defendants Nos.3 to 6 in pursuance of the said Will dated 31-03-1997 was beyond their authority and they were not the owners of the property as on that date and hence, the said sale-deed, having been executed in contravention of Section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act and registered at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Surat on 29-07-2002 under Serial No.4860 in favour of the defendant No.3 as well as the registered sale-deed executed by the defendant No.2 in favour of the defendants Nos.4 and 5 with respect to the land bearing Survey No.244, registered at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Surat under Serial No.83 are held to be void. A copy of this order be sent to the office of the Sub-Registrar, Surat. The claim of the plaintiffs qua the defendant No.7 is dismissed.”
2. The appellants before the Court are original plaintiffs and legal heirs of original owner of the land in question. The land bearing Survey Nos.579, 509, 489/p, 897, 863, 837, 244 and 90 situated at Village-
Dumas, Taluka-Choryasi of District-Surat.
3. Respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 are connected with land in question by way of will executed purportedly by Nathubhai; Original land owner, thereby being legate for various Survey Nos. as under:
(1) Dhansukhbhai Nathubhai Patel for Survey Nos.837, 863 and 897 and (2) Sureshbhai Jayantibhai Aahir for Survey No.244.
4. Respondent No.3; Lallubhai Sukhabhai Patel is purchaser of Survey Nos.837, 863 and 897 from Dhansukhbhai Nathubhai Patel, whereas respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6 are purchaser from respondent No.2; Sureshbhai Jayantibhai Aahir, whereas respondent No.7 are banakhat holders from Nathubhai (Original land owner) for Survey Nos.837, 863 and 897.
5. By the impugned judgment and decree, suit came to be allowed qua respondent Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, whereas suit came to be disallowed qua respondent No.7.
6. When the present Appeal was taken up for joint hearing along with cognate Appeals, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants has indicated to the Court that in so far as respondent No.7 is concerned, settlement has taken place. He has referred to another order passed by the Coordinate Bench in First Appeal No.967 of 2012, which was preferred by respondent No.1 herein, which was also disposed of as withdrawn in view of settlement arrived at and First Appeal being withdrawn. Reference is made to Common Oral Order dated 21-12-2020 passed in First Appeal No.967 of 2012.
7. Learned Senior Advocate has also pla
