IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 165 of 2026 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2026 In R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 165 of 2026 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ✓

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

HARIBHAI GOVINDBHAI RATHOD Versus NILESH HARILAL JOSHI & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MR RC KAKKAD(389) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI Date : 12/03/2026

JUDGMENT

1. The present Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter, referred to as “the Code”) by the appellant – original plaintiff assailing the judgment and decree dated 13.11.2025 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Khambhaliya in Regular Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2023 upholding the judgment and decree dated 12.05.2023 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Khambhaliya in Regular Civil Suit No. 74 of 2009.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. R.C. Kakkad for the appellant.

Perused the paper-book.

For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their original status in the suit. Appellant herein is original plaintiff and respondent Nos. 1 to 9 herein are original defendant Nos. 1 to

9 in the suit.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

3.1 The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration, cancellation of a registered sale deed dated 28.02.2007 and a relief of permanent injunction with regard to an agricultural land bearing Revenue Survey No. 288 / P – 1 admeasuring about Acre 2 – 39 Gunthas i.e. Hectre-Are 1-20-39 sq. mtrs., more particularly, situated at Village – Bharana, Taluka – Khambhaliya, District – Jamnagar. According to the plaintiff, defendant Nos. 3 and 4 executed an agreement to sell with possession of the suit land on 31.05.2005. The total sale consideration was agreed at Rs.1,15,281/-. The plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.15,281/- in cash to defendant Nos. 3 and 4 who, handed over the peaceful and vacant possession of suit land to plaintiff on the date of execution of agreement to sell.

The plaintiff requested defendant Nos. 3 and 4 to get the sale deed executed after accepting remaining amount of consideration, but defendant Nos. 3 and 4, under one pretext or another, did not execute the registered sale deed. Defendant No. 1 on 11.11.2008 visited the suit land and informed the plaintiff that he has purchased the suit property vide a registered sale deed dated 28.02.2007 through power of attorney holder of original land owners, who are defendant Nos. 2 to 9. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the present suit. Summons of the suit were served upon the defendants. Defendant No. 1 filed written statement at Exhibit – 15. Defendant No. 2 filed written statement at Exhibit – 19. Rest of the defendants, though served, did not file any written statements. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues at Exhibit – 53:

“(1) Whether plaintiff proves that, plaintiff has purchased disputed property from the defendant no.

3 and 4 against the consideration of Rs.30281/-?

(2) Whether plaintiff proves that, defendant no. 2 to 9 has made wrongful transfer to defendant no. 1 by way of registered sale deed no. 457 dt. 28/2/2009?

(3) Whether defendant proves that, plaintiff has no right or interest over the disputed property?

(4) Whether plaintiff is entitled to any relief as prayed for?

(5) What order and decree?”

The plaintiff examined himself at Exhibit – 57 and three more witnesses, namely Subhash Govindbhai Rathod, Gordhanbhai Ramjibhai Parmar and Vijay Mansukhlal Khetiya at Exhibits – 75, 76 and 79, respectively. Plaintiff also produced documentary evidence such as the agreement to sell dated 31.05.2005 at Exhibit – 60, the registered sale deed dated 28.02.2007, Exhibit – 61,