Reserved On : 27/01/2026 Pronounced On : 04/02/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 222 of 2022 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022 In R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 222 of 2022 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI ==========================================================

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

HANSABEN W/O JIVAN BARIYA Versus SAKARBHAI RAMBHAI SOLANKI & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MR. BHAUMIK DHOLARIYA(7009) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR TUSHARKUMAR R UPADHYAY(9812) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MS SNEHA A JOSHI(2156) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

CAV JUDGMENT

1. This second appeal u/s 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short “the Code”) at the instance of the original plaintiff challenges concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the learned Courts below, whereby firstly, the learned Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Una by judgment and decree dated

3.4.2021 dismissed the suit. Regular Civil Appeal No.7 of 2021 filed by the appellant – plaintiff was also dismissed by the learned 2^nd Additional District Judge, Una by judgment and decree dated 9.3.2022. Both the judgment and decree have been questioned by the appellant – plaintiff inter alia raising following questions as substantial questions of law.

“i. Whether the Court(s) below erred in holding that registered deed / document is mandatory for relinquishment / waiver of right?

ii. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, while deciding the title of the property in the civil suit, the Courts below erred in heavily relying upon the Judgment passed by the High Court in revenue entry proceedings?

iii. Whether the revenue entry of family settlement / waiver of right has no evidentiary value?

Iv Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court(s) below erred in holding that on account of withdrawal of previous suit by the Defendant No.2, the Defendant No.1 has no dispute with respect to title of the suit land and therefore the Plaintiff is not entitled to get the reliefs as prayed in the plaint?

v. Whether the Court(s) below erred in holding that the Plaintiff is not the bonafide purchaser of the suit land?

vi. Whether the Id. Lower Appellate Court has erred in not framing proper issues for determination and has mechanically upheld the Judgment of Id. Trial Court without appreciating the evidences on record in its true perspective?”

2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, parties are referred to as per their original status before the learned trial Court.

3. The factual matrix required notice in nutshell are that the plaintiff filed suit for declaration and cancellation of sale deed executed on 7.5.1990 registered at Sr No.556 by Rajiben Jadav through her irrevocable power of attorney Vasantlal Gokalbhai in favour of defendant No.1 Sakarbhai Solanki and to declare that the plaintiff is the owner and occupier of the land bearing survey No. 179/1 admeasuring 1 acre 3 guntha of Tal: Una (in short “suit land”). The plaintiff ‘s case is based on the fact that previously, the suit land was in name of Rajiben. Defendant No.2 Valabhai Jadav is son of Rajiben. The revenue entry was mutated in favour of Valabhai Jadav on 5.9.1975 being mutation entry No.672, which assigned the title in favour of Valabhai Jadav, It is further the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff being bona fide purchaser of the suit land purchased the same on 18.4.2009 by executing registered sale deed No.1005 from defendant No.1 Valabhai and on the premises of the said execution of the sale deed, the plaintiff became the owner and occupier of the suit land.

3.1 The aforesaid suit was tried by the learned trial Court, who, after fixing the issues and permitting both the parties to lead evidence