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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
