Gujarat High Court
Ramsingji Gulabji Thakor vs Mafatbhai Mehurbhai Desai on 12 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4437/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL) No. 4437 of 2024
In F/FIRST APPEAL No. 23612 of 2024
==========================================================
RAMSINGJI GULABJI THAKOR & ORS.
Versus
MAFATBHAI MEHURBHAI DESAI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.HEMANG H PARIKH(2628) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
A R KADRI(7330) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
URVESH M PRAJAPATI(8878) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 12/08/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The applicants herein are aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 14.7.2021 passed by 5 th learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Ahmedabad in Special Civil Suit No.45 of 2021.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Hemang Parikh for the applicants and learned advocates Mr. A. R. Kadri as well as Mr. Urvesh M. Prajapati for the respondents. Perused the record.
3. Learned advocate for the applicants submitted that Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:47:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/4437/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined the respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed a suit for a relief of specific performance of registered agreement to sell of the year 2020 and further prayed reliefs of protection of their possession pursuant to the registered agreement to sell. The suit land is admeasuring about 1360.22 square meters which came in the share of original defendant No.1 Nanaji @ Keshaji. In the year 1998, defendant No.1 agreed to sell the said parcel of land to respondent Nos.1 and 2 by a registered agreement to sell. On demand of the excess amount of sale consideration, another agreement to sell in the year 2015 came to be executed between defendant No.1 and plaintiffs. Defendant No.2 who has pursuant to a registered release deed of 2020 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 acquired the ownership rights of the suit land admeasuring about 1360.22 square meters. Thereafter, defendant No.2 executed registered agreement to sell in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in 2020. The suit land is situated at Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:47:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/4437/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined District Ahmedabad, Taluka Ahmedabad (West), New Taluka Vejalpur, Moje Vastrapur bearing block / survey No.188. Out of the total land of 12242 sq. meters, land admeasuring about 1462 sq. meters was declared excess under the Land Ceiling Act and the land remains in block / survey number is 10788 sq. meters. It is contended by learned advocate for the applicants that the land admeasuring about 12242 sq. meters of block / survey No.188 is an undivided land and there is no mutation entries with regard to division of the land in the revenue records. The applicants are the proper parties in the aforesaid suit as they have undivided share in block / survey no. 188. The suit is hit by the law of Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 and also hit by the law of limitation. The agreement to sell of 1998 is sought to be indirectly implemented by plaintiffs in the year 2021. The agreement to sell of 1998 is without possession. Even the registered agreement to sell of 2020 is without possession. It is further contended that without joining Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:47:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/4437/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined the other co-sharers in the suit, the suit came to be filed. The consent decree is a collusive decree. Within a period of six months of the suit, the parties invited a consent decree.
4. The interest of the applicants is required to be safe guarded in view of the aforesaid facts. He has further contended that the present respondents have filed a suit for specific performance against the present applicants for the portion of the land of block / survey No.188. The said suit is pending at the stage of hearing Exh.5. After the said suit being filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed the present suit for the suit land which is part of block / survey No.188.
5. Per contra, learned advocate for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 has supported the judgment and decree and contended that the defendant No.1 Nanaji @ Keshaji Aataji executed a registered release deed dated 12.11.2020 in favour of original defendant No.2 and Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:47:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/4437/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined hence, defendant No.1 was deleted. Before that, defendant No.1 executed a registered agreement to sell in the year 1998 and, thereafter, again executed a registered agreement to sell on revised terms and conditions of consideration on 13.3.2015 and, thereafter, defendant No.1 demanded more consideration, and executed a registered agreement to sell in the year 2020. He has contended that the applicants are not aggrieved by the judgment and decree because the agreement to sell was only pertaining to the share of defendant No.1. Respondent No.4 - Kalpna Jesangji executed registered agreement to sell in favour of present respondents on 19.10.2020. The registered release deed dated 12.11.2020 under which defendant No.1 Nanaji Keshaji released his rights and share in the suit land in favour of original defendant No.2. The said registered release deed was pending and retained by a stamp valuation authority on the ground of deficit stamp duty. The contention that the suit is hit by the Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:47:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/4437/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined provisions of Tenancy Law is misconceived as the land in question was not granted to tenant u/S.32 of the Tenancy Act and, the restriction of Section 43 would not come in a way of passing a decree.
6. Learned advocate for the respondent has further contended that the applicants have also released their share in undivided land admeasuring about 1058 sq. meters of the block / survey No.188 Paikee (land admeasuring 6473 of Final Plot No.96/1 and land admeasuring about 877 sq. meters of Final Plot No.96/2) in favour of original defendant No.2 - present respondent No.4.
7. Learned advocate for respondent No.4 did not submit any submission but adopted the submission canvassed by learned advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
8. I have considered the submissions canvassed by learned advocates for the respective parties and Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:47:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/4437/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined perused the papers placed on record.
9. A fact comes out on record that respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed a suit for specific performance of registered agreement to sell of the year 2020 and further prayed that in view of the registered agreement to sell of 1998 the possession which plaintiff is enjoying may not be disturbed. The undisputed fact which is coming out during the course of submissions of learned advocates for the parties is that the land bearing block / survey No.188 is an undivided piece of an agricultural land and out of the total area of the land, undivided land admeasuring about 1360.22 sq. meters was agreed to be sold by original defendant No.1 Nanaji @ Keshaji Aataji to the original plaintiffs - present respondent Nos.1 and 2. The agreement to sell came to be registered in 1998 and thereafter for the same land, parties agreed to execute another agreement to sell on 13.3.2015 on revised terms.
10. As per the contentions of the plaintiffs in the plaint, Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:47:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/4437/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined defendant No.1 released his share in the suit land in favour of defendant No.2 i.e. present respondent No.2 by executing a registered release deed dated 12.11.2020. Thereafter, respondent No.4 executed registered agreement to sell in the year 2020 in favour of the respondent Nos.1 and 2. It also appears during the course of submission that a Special Civil Suit No.28 of 2021 is pending between the present applicants and respondent nos.1 and 2 for the undivided share in the block / survey No.188. After the said suit came to be instituted, respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed the present suit seeking relief of specific performance and permanent injunction against respondent Nos.3 and 4. Pending suit, respondent No.3 came to be deleted pursuant to the registered release deed executed between respondent Nos.3 and 4 respectively. I am of the view that considering the submissions and the paper-book, a case is made out by the applicants that applicants are aggrieved by the impugned decree which came to be passed in view of Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:47:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/4437/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined the consent terms submitted by plaintiffs and defendant No.2 within a period of 6 months from the institution of the suit. Prima facie, it appears that the land bearing block / survey No.188 is an undivided agricultural land and all the co-owners who have equal share in the aforesaid block / survey No.188 are not before the Court.
11. In view of above, the application stands allowed. No order as to costs.
(D. M. DESAI,J) vk Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:47:51 IST 2025