IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 561 of 2020 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No 

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

RUKHIBEN DEVAJI RAJAJI THAKOR Versus THAKOR BHIKHAJI DEVAJI & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MR. NISHIT P GANDHI(6946) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MS. KALPANA J. BRAHMBHATT for MR R H BHARDWAJ(13628) for the Defendant(s) No. 5,6 RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2.1,2.2,2.3,2.4,3,4 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER Date : 11/03/2026

JUDGMENT

1. The present First Appeal is preferred under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, calling in question the legality and validity of the judgment and decree dated 22.11.2018 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kalol, in Special Civil Suit No. 113 of 2011, whereby the suit instituted by the present appellant–original plaintiff for cancellation of the sale deed, recovery of possession and permanent injunction came to be dismissed.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are as under:-

2.1. The plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are the legal heirs of late Shri Devaji Rajaji Thakor, who was the recorded owner of land bearing Block/Survey No. 166 admeasuring 0-25-29 Hectare-Are-Square Meter, situated at Village Jethlaj, Taluka Kalol, District Gandhinagar, being old tenure land (hereinafter referred to as “the suit property”). It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property is ancestral in nature and was being jointly cultivated by the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 and 2. After the demise of their father, late Devaji Rajaji Thakor, the name of the plaintiff was not mutated in the revenue record. It is alleged that defendant Nos. 1, 2/1 to 2/4, in collusion with defendant No. 3, executed a registered sale deed dated 19.04.2008 in respect of the suit property without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff and without paying her share in the sale consideration. It is further the case of the plaintiff that consequential revenue entries were mutated without issuance of notice under Section 135(d) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code to the plaintiff. Thereafter, defendant No. 3 executed a further sale deed dated 29.05.2009 in favour of defendant No. 4, and in turn, defendant No. 4 executed a registered sale deed dated 25.03.2011 in favour of defendant Nos. 5 and 6. Upon acquiring knowledge of the aforesaid transactions, the plaintiff applied for Pedhinama and visited the suit property. It is alleged that defendant No. 4 obstructed her entry and possession, which constrained the plaintiff to institute the suit seeking cancellation of the sale deeds, recovery of possession and permanent injunction.

2.2. Upon service of summons, defendant No. 1 appeared and filed written statement at Exh. 18, inter alia admitting the case of the plaintiff with regard to her share in the suit property and further admitting that the sale deed had been executed without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff and that she had been deprived of her lawful share in the sale consideration. Defendant No. 1 also alleged that fraud had been committed upon the plaintiff and supported the reliefs prayed for in the plaint. Defendant Nos. 2/1 to 2/4 and 3 did not file any written statement. Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 filed their written statements contesting the suit. Upon completion of pleadings, the learned Trial Court framed issues for determination. In order to substantiate her case, the plaintiff examined herself at Exh. 59 and produced documentary evidence, including copies of the sale deeds up to the year 2011 at Exhs. 63, 64 and 65, and certified copies of the revenue extracts at Exhs. 66 to 68. The contesting defendants did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence. Accordingly