##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SA/601/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/02/2026

0.21073100349262164

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 601 of 2025

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

CHAUHAN BALUBHAI JETMALBHAI & ORS.

Versus

JETHABHAI RANCHODBHAI PATEL

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

Appearance:

MR.ADITYA J PANDYA(6991) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3

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

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

Date : 05/02/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. This Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’)

challenging the concurrent finding of the judgment and decree

passed in RCA No.20 of 2020 (The old RCA No.321 of 2018),

whereby the Additional District Judge, Vadodara at Karjan

dismissed the appeal by judgment and decree dated 25.08.2025

and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2018

passed in RCS No.7 of 2009 by the Civil Court, Karjan.

2. The appellants are the original defendants and

respondent is the original plaintiff and for the sake of brevity,

they are referred to as per their status before the learned trial

Court.

3. The facts in brief taken from the impugned

judgments are that:-

Page 1 of 12

Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Tue Feb 17 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 01 04:06:10 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SA/601/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/02/2026

0.21073100349262164

3.1 The plaintiff in the year 2001 was in need of money.

Therefore, he approached the defendant No.3 - Ramabhai

Samantbhai Chauhan. The defendant No.3 shows willingness to

lend the money to the plaintiff with the condition to sign the

blank papers. The plaintiff, since was in dire need of money, he

signed the blank papers. According to the plaintiff, the defendant

No.3, at the relevant point of time, assured that the blank signed

papers shall not be misused and when plaintiff repaid the

amount lended to him, the blank signed paper would be

returned back. The transaction of Rs.30,000/-, which according

to the plaintiff, has been paid to the defendant in 2002, but the

defendant did not return back the blank signed papers on the

ground that they were misplaced.

3.2 In January, 2009, plaintiff received a notice under

Section 135(D) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879,

whereby he came to know that the defendant No.3 on blank

signed papers, executed irrevocable Power of Attorney

(hereinafter referred to as ‘POA’, for short) in regards to the land

of Block No. 599, admeasuring 0-77-90 hectares RA of Moje

Atali, Taluka: Karjan (‘Suit property’, for short). It also came to

the knowledge of the plaintiff that defendant No.3, on strength of

this POA, executed a registered sale deed having Serial No.767 of

2006 in favor of the defendant No.1 and defendant No.2.

3.3 Since plaintiff came to know about the bogus and

forged POA as well as registered sale deed in favor of the

defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 based upon the forged POA,

sale deed of Block No.599 was executed, he approached the

learned trial Court by filing the RCS No.7 of 2009 for the relief of

Page 2 of 12

Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Tue Feb 17 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 01 04:06:10 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SA/601/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/02/2026

0.21073100349262164

cancellation of the sale deed, declaration and perpetual

injunction.

3.4 Plaintiff claimed the relief of canceling the sale deed

No.767 dated 24.05.2006 executed by the defendant No.3 as the

POA holder of the plaintiff in favor of the defendant No.1 and

defendant No.2. Plaintiff also claimed the relief that the

possession of the plaintiff over the suit property be protected by

issuing the perpetual injunction.

3.5 As usual, upon service of the notice, defendants came

out with the contention and claimed the absolute ownership over

the disputed property on the ground that the plaintiff executed

the POA in favor of defendant No.3 and pursuant to which,

defendant No.3 sold the property to the defendant No.1 and

defendant No.2. As such, defendan