Gujarat High Court
Maheshbhai Balubhai Ambaliya vs Laxmiben Haribhai Ambaliya W/O Decd. ... on 6 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/106/2018 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 106 of 2018
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2018
In R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 106 of 2018
==========================================================
MAHESHBHAI BALUBHAI AMBALIYA & ORS.
Versus
LAXMIBEN HARIBHAI AMBALIYA W/O DECD. HARIBHAI KARAMSHIBHAI
AMBALIYA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRATIK Y JASANI(5325) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR.MRUDUL M BAROT(3750) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Date : 06/05/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "the Code") being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 15.11.2017 passed by 4th Additional District Judge, Amreli in Regular Civil Appeal No.11 of 2006 confirming the judgment and decree passed by Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Dhari in Regular Civil Suit No.95 of 1991.
2. For the sake of brevity and convenience, the parties are referred to their original status as that in the suit.
Page 1 of 11 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 02:28:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/106/2018 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2025 undefined
3. The brief facts arising in the present suit are that the plaintiff's father Dharamsibhai Bhagwanbhai and defendant's father Karamsibhai Bhagwanbhai were real brothers and it is a plaintiff's case that land survey no.275 admeasuring acres 11-04 Gunthas is of independent ownership and possession of the plaintiff and same is acquired by the plaintiff by devolution of property through succession. The plaintiff has put up a case that he has developed the said land and he is the sole owner of the suit property. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff is on the ground that the defendant has no right, title, interest in the land and hence, he has sought declaration that the suit property is of independent ownership and possession of the plaintiff and that defendants and others have no right, title, interest in the property. The plaintiff has also prayed that the defendants be ordered to remove the cultivation if any, made by the defendants by way of encroachment of the suit property.
4. The defendant appeared in the said suit and filed written statement and amongst other grounds it has been stated by the defendant that before filing the present suit, the plaintiff had filed Regular Civil Page 2 of 11 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 02:28:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/106/2018 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2025 undefined Suit No.161 of 1981 against the defendant, which has been unconditionally withdrawn and therefore the suit is barred on the ground of res judicata.
5. The Trial Court has framed following issues vide exhibit 47:
"(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that land Survey No.274 Acres 11-04 Gunthas of Khambha Sim is of the independent ownership and possession of the plaintiff and in this land, the defendants have no any share, right, title or interest?
(2) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled to get declaration and injunction as prayed for?
(3) Whether the defendants prove that the suit land has been partitioned into two shares?
And western side share gone in the portion of the father of the defendants and eastern side portion gone in the share of the father of the plaintiff?
(4) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation?
(5) Whether the plaintiff's suit is bared by res-judicata? (5A) Whether the defendants prove that they have become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession?
(5B) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of the parties?
(6) What order & decree?"
Page 3 of 11 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 02:28:27 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/106/2018 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2025 undefined
6. The plaintiff had examined himself vide exhibit 52 whereas the defendant examined himself vide exhibit 102 and after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence and giving finding on all the issues, the Trial Court had dismissed the said suit.
7. Being aggrieved by the said judgement and decree, the present plaintiff had filed appeal under the provisions of Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and by a judgement and decree dated 15.11.2017, the said appeal has been rejected by the First Appellate Court while confirming the Judgement and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit no.95 of 1991, hence, the present second appeal.
8. Learned advocate for the plaintiff has mainly contended that the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have not considered the legal possession of plaintiff as the plaintiff was having possession of the suit property. It has also been argued that by considering exhibit 135, the Trial Court and the Appellate Court has only considered the hissa which is based on the 7-12 abstract. It has also been argued by the learned advocate for the plaintiff that though the Page 4 of 11 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 02:28:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/106/2018 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2025 undefined issue no.1 and 2, were to be proved by the plaintiff and the same were proved by the plaintiff, the Trial Court has treated the same as not proved and therefore has committed an error.
9. It has also been argued that though the plaintiff has produced relevant revenue record to show that the suit property is of ownership and possession of the plaintiff, the Trial Court and the Appellate Court has not taken into consideration the said fact. It has also been argued that there is nothing on record that survey no.275/1 and Survey no.275/2 have been partitioned and the partition has not been proved on record. It has also been argued that the Suit that was filed earlier (Regular Civil Suit No.161 of 1981) and the present suit are different and hence the present suit cannot be considered as barred on the ground of Res Judicata. On the aforesaid counts, it has been argued that there are substantial questions of law involved in the present second appeal and therefore, the present second appeal is required to be admitted on the substantial questions of law, formulated in the memorandum of appeal.
10. Having heard learned advocate for the plaintiff, in view of the oral Page 5 of 11 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 02:28:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/106/2018 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2025 undefined evidence of the plaintiff vide exhibit 52 and the oral evidence of defendant no.2, vide exhibit 102, it can be clearly established that the partition of property took place between the father of the plaintiff and defendant and thereafter demarcation was made between the parties. The said partition took place before eighty years and the revenue entry to that effect in the name of plaintiff's father and defendant's father had already taken place. It is in this view that as per exhibit 135 in column 4, the name of the possessor is shown as Balubhai Dharamsibhai, i.e. the predecessor of the present plaintiff. Whereas in hissa no.2, the name of possessor is Haribhai Karamsibhai, i.e. father of the defendant and therefore the Trial Court has come to the conclusion that two shares had taken place of survey no.275 and by way of partition, one share came in the possession of the plaintiff and therefore the plaintiff and defendant both are in joint possession of survey no.275.
11. Moreover, it is also required to be noted that in Regular Civil Suit no.161 of 1981, (filed by the plaintiff), the plaintiff has stated that the defendants have encroached the land bearing Survey no.275 and the prayer in that suit was for removal of the encroachment and to handover the possession of the premises to the plaintiff whereas Page 6 of 11 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 02:28:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/106/2018 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2025 undefined in the present suit, the plaintiff has come forward with a case that the plaintiff is in possession of survey no.275. Hence, a completely contrary stand has been taken by the plaintiff by filing the letter suit, i.e. Civil Suit No.95 of 1991.
12. In the present suit, the defendant has also examined the surveyor at exhibit 124 and the said surveyor has also deposed that on 16.12.1973, the measurement of land survey no.275 was done and Balubhai Dharamsibhai i.e. predecessor of the plaintiff were shown in possession of the land admeasuring 9 bigha and 11 Vasa in survey no.275/1 and the predecessor of the present defendant are in possession of land survey no.275/2 and therefore, it has been clearly established that the predecessor of the plaintiff and predecessor of the defendant have partitioned revenue survey no.275 into survey nos.275/1 and 275/2.
13. It is also required to be noted that the earlier suit that is Regular Civil Suit No.161 of 1981 has been withdrawn by the plaintiff and though the said suit is not decided on merits but the fact remains that after withdrawing the said suit, the plaintiff has filed the present suit without taking leave of the Court to file a fresh suit at Page 7 of 11 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 02:28:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/106/2018 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2025 undefined the time of withdrawal of Regular Civil Suit No.161 of 1981, and therefore the Trial Court has rightly held that though the suit is not decided on merits after withdrawal of the said suit, the plaintiff could not have filed Regular Civil Suit no.95 of 1991. It is therefore also clear that no leave of the Trial Court under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) of the Code was obtained by the plaintiffs for initiation of a fresh suit. Therefore also, the present suit is not sustainable in the eye of law.
14. The other relevant point is also required to be noted that though the plaintiff is claiming right through his father and that though the defendant had taken a ground that the mother of the defendant was residing with the defendant and the defendant had stated that the suit land was given to the mother of the defendant for her maintenance, the defendant's mother was not joined as a party in the suit. The fact also remains that though the suit was for injunction along with the reliefs for injunction the plaintiff had also sought for relief for a declaration to declare the plaintiff to be the owner of the suit premises and that being the case, as the mother of the defendant was a co-owner of Survey no.275, she was also a necessary and proper party.
Page 8 of 11 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 02:28:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/106/2018 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2025 undefined
15. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that there are no substantial questions of law involved in the present case. Since there are no substantial questions of law involved in the present second appeal on the fact that the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have given concurrent finding of fact, the instant appeal is required to be dismissed.
16. It is required to be noted that in Second Appeal, the scope is very limited and the Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence. In the case of Navaneethammal v. Arjuna Chetty reported in 1996 (6) SCC 177, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:-
"11. This Court, time without number, pointed out that interference with the concurrent findings of the courts below by the High Court under Section 100 CPC must be avoided unless warranted by compelling reasons. In any case, the High Court is not expected to reappreciate the evidence just to replace the findings of the lower courts."
17. In the case of Jaichand (Dead) through Lrs and Other v. Sahnulal and Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3864, Page 9 of 11 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 02:28:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/106/2018 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2025 undefined the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:-
"28. It is thus clear that under Section 100 CPC, the High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the first Appellate Court which is the final Court of facts except in such cases where such findings were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law, or its settled position on the basis of the pronouncement made by the Apex Court or based upon inadmissible evidence or without evidence."
18. Therefore, also the plaintiff has miserably failed to show that there is any substantial question of law involved in the present appeal and the substantial question of law which has been formulated in the memo of appeal are also not substantial question of law and on facts and the said factual aspect has well been considered by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.
19. Under the circumstances, this Second Appeal is devoid of any substantial question of law. Both the learned Trial Court and first appellate Court have rightly decided the issue between the parties Page 10 of 11 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 02:28:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/106/2018 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2025 undefined in the right perspective and as stated above no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. The plaintiffs have failed to prove their case before the learned trial Court as well as before the first appellate Court. This Court does not find any substance in the present Second Appeal as the same is devoid of any merit both on facts and law and the same is dismissed at admission stage.
20. In view of the dismissal of the Second Appeal the Civil Application for stay does not survive and the same is accordingly disposed of.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J) URIL RANA Page 11 of 11 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 02:28:27 IST 2025