IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 91 of 2026 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025 In R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 91 of 2026 ==========================================================

BIJAL BHIMABHAI Versus LHS OF DECD. BHAGA ALA & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MR MIT S THAKKAR(11223) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI Date : 16/03/2026 ORAL ORDER

1. Learned Senior advocate Ms. Megha Jani assisted by learned advocate Mr. Mit Thakkar for the appellant submits that on a sole one line statement in the cross-examination of plaintiff, that document (Exh-38) of sale is a concocted document, the judgment of the learned Trial Court is reversed by the learned Appellate Court. It is submitted that in the cross-examination produced at page-42 of the paper-book, the plaintiff has stated in para-7 that it is not true that the plaintiff has concocted the sale deed in his favour. It is submitted that the sale deed which, is of 1971 has never been challenged by the contesting defendant. The defendant nos. 2, 3 and 4 have supported the averments of the plaintiff in the written statement and have admitted that the sale deed of 1971 was executed in favour of the plaintiff is correct.

2. In support of her contention learned Senior advocate Ms. Jani for appellant has relied upon the decision of in the case of “Chikkam Koreswara Rao versus Chikkam Subba Rao and Others reported in

1970(1) SCC 558.”

3. Learned advocate for the appellant has proposed following substantial questions of law:

3.1. Can Appellate Court grant relief in favour of Defendant who has failed to file a separate suit or counter claim?

3.2. Does a sale deed which is duly registered and has remained unchallenged for decades, lose its veracity on the basis of an admission made by Plaintiff?

3.3. Whether the impugned judgment passed by Appellant Court below is perverse in as much as it overlooks settled and undisturbed possession of the suit property by Appellants?

3.4. Whether the impugned judgment passed by Court below is perverse in as much as it solely relies on an admission made by Plaintiff ignoring all other documentary evidence?

3.5. Whether the impugned judgment passed by Court below is perverse in as much as it fails to read the deposition of Plaintiff in its entirety and holds insolated sentences as an admission?

Except above no other substantive questions of law have been proposed by the appellant.

4. Considering the issue, Admit.

5. In the meantime, the operation and implementation of the order dated 23.06.2025 is stayed.

6. Record and proceedings are to be called for.

(D. M. DESAI,J)

PD