Rohinaben Arvindbhai Patel vs Diptiben Keyurbhai Patel
2022 Latest Caselaw 5424 Guj

     C/CA/806/2021                                ORDER DATED: 23/06/2022




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                     R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 806 of 2021

                     In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 8669 of 2021

==========================================================
                       ROHINABEN ARVINDBHAI PATEL
                                  Versus
                        DIPTIBEN KEYURBHAI PATEL
==========================================================
Appearance:
DHRUVIK K PATEL(7769) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
NANDKISHOR C SHAH(8577) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR MANAN A SHAH(5412) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE ISSUED BY PUBLICATION for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE

                              Date : 23/06/2022

                                ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Dhruvik K. Patel and learned

advocate Mr. Manan A. Shah appearing for the respective parties.

2. By way of this civil application, the original owners pray for

leave to appeal to challenge the judgment and decree dated

14.02.2020 passed by the learned 14th Additional Senior Civil

Judge, Vadodara in Special Civil Suit No.315 of 2007, whereby the

decree is passed in favour of the respondents herein for

reconveyance of the sale deed.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Dhruvik K. Patel appearing for the

applicants submits that being the original land owners, they were

the necessary party to the suit whereby the cancellation of the

C/CA/806/2021 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2022

sale deed executed by them was prayed for and it was also

granted by the learned trial court and therefore, in case of

reconveyance to the respondents herein, they were the

necessary party to the suit, and therefore, they may be granted

leave to appeal to challenge the said order and decree passed by

the learned trial court. He also submits that the suit is hit by

Section 4 of the Benami Transaction Act.

4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Manan A. Shah appearing

for the respondent/plaintiff submits that the applicants herein

were original land owners, a transaction was entered into

between the parties to the suit and the present applicants herein

for purchase of the suit land, for which the amounts were paid by

the respondents herein and accordingly, the applicants had

executed the sale deed in favour of the maternal uncle of the

respondent No.1 herein, who was the defendant in the said suit.

He further submits that it was an inter-se arrangement between

the parties whereby even though the consideration for the suit

land was paid by the respondent No.1 herein, still the sale deed

was executed in the name of the defendant her maternal uncle

and as the said internal arrangement did not work out, a suit was

filed for cancelling the sale deed and reconveying the same in

favour of the respondent No.1 herein. He also submits that the

agreement to sale coupled with possession was executed in the

C/CA/806/2021 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2022

year 2006 and later on, sale deed was executed in the year-2007.

Now in the year-2021, the original land owners want to become a

party to the transaction on the ground that they are necessary

party to the suit.

5. It is seen that the present applicants had executed an

agreement of sale, coupled with the possession and a irrevocable

power of attorney in favour of the defendant in the suit, as they

had sold the land. Later on, they had also executed a sale deed in

favour of the defendant Nos.2 and 3 in the suit. Once the

applicants herein had already sold the land for consideration by

way of agreement to sale coupled with the possession and

irrevocable power of attorney and later on by executing the sale

deed, they had no right, title and interest left in the suit property,

and therefore, in the opinion of this Court, they are not necessary

party to the said suit. Even if, it is accepted for the sake of

argument that the suit is hit by Benami Transaction Act, still the

present applicants cannot have any benefit or relief from the

said fact as they had already received the full consideration of

the sale in the year-2006. This Court therefore is of the opinion

that the present applicants have no locus in the said suit. The

judgment & order in the suit has been accepted by the parties

thereto and has become final and acted upon also. The applicants

cannot be said to be a necessary party to the suit. And therefore

C/CA/806/2021 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2022

the leave to appeal to file the First Appeal against the impugned

judgment and order is refused.

6. For the reasons stated above, the present application is

dismissed. No order as to costs.

(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.) SUYASH