Gujarat High Court
Nagarbhai Tulsidas Prajapati vs Jitendrabhai Babulal Patel on 15 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/282/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 282 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 282 of 2025
With
R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 283 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 283 of 2025
With
R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 291 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 291 of 2025
With
R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 292 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 292 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
NAGARBHAI TULSIDAS PRAJAPATI & ORS.
Versus
JITENDRABHAI BABULAL PATEL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. YOGENDRA THAKORE(3975) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
Page 1 of 13
Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 17 01:48:43 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/282/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
MR ANVESH V VYAS(5654) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Date : 15/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present Second Appeals have been filed under Section 100 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC', for short).
Second Appeal No.291 of 2025 :-
1.1 It assails the judgment and decree dated 25.03.2025 passed by
District Judge, Mehsana in Regular Civil Appeal No.60 of 2017 whereby
the first appellate Court has confirmed the judgment and decree dated
30.03.2017 passed by 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kadi in Regular
Civil Suit No.132 of 2008.
Second Appeal No.292 of 2025 :-
1.2 It is against the judgment and decree dated 25.03.2025 passed by
District Judge, Mehsana in Regular Civil Appeal No.59 of 2017 whereby
the first appellate Court has confirmed the judgment and decree dated
31.03.2017 passed by 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kadi in Regular
Civil Suit No.131 of 2008.
Second Appeal No.282 of 2025 :-
1.3 Against the judgment and decree dated 25.03.2025 passed by
District Judge, Mehsana in Regular Civil Appeal No.61 of 2017 whereby
the first appellate Court has confirmed the judgment and decree dated
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/282/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
30.03.2017 passed by 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kadi in Regular
Civil Suit No.215 of 2008.
Second Appeal No.283 of 2025 :-
1.4 Against the judgment and decree dated 25.03.2025 passed by
District Judge, Mehsana in Regular Civil Appeal No.62 of 2017 whereby
the first appellate Court has confirmed the judgment and decree dated
30.03.2017 passed by 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kadi in Regular
Civil Suit No.216 of 2008.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as their
original status referred in the suit.
3. Before giving factual matrix, some details of all appeals,
independently, are required to be brought in light, which are referred to
hereinafter.
4. There were in all four suits that were filed between the parties,
short facts of which are given as under:
Second Appeal No.291 of 2025:-
4.1 The Civil Suit No.132 of 2008, was filed by plaintiff claiming to
have purchased the property i.e. Survey No.57/2 [new Survey No.65 of
Mouje Alusana, Tal.Kadi, Dist.Mahesana, admeasuring 0-44-00
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/282/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
Hec.Are.Sq Mtr. claiming to be owners by way of registered sale deed
dated 21.06.2006 and the suit property has been purchased by plaintiff
from defendant no.1 and in the said suit, plaintiff has sought for relief that
defendant nos.2 and 3 in collusion with each other have executed sale-
deed dated 10.01.2006 and it is the case of the plaintiff that fraudulent
power of attorney has been executed in favour of defendant no.2, dated
04.01.2006, by defendant no.1 and thereby a sale-deed has been executed
by defendant no.2, in his favour i.e. defendant no.3.
Second Appeal No.292 of 2025 :-
4.2 The Civil Suit No.131 of 2008 was filed by plaintiff claiming to
have purchased the property i.e. Survey No.57/1 [new Survey No.65 of
Mouje Alusana, Tal.Kadi, Dist.Mahesana, admeasuring 0-44-00
Hec.Are.Sq Mtr.] claiming to be owners by way of registered sale deed,
dated 21.06.2006 and the suit property has been purchased by plaintiff
from defendant no.1 and in the said suit plaintiff has sought for relief that
defendant nos.2 and 3 in collusion with each other have executed sale-
deed, dated 10.01.2006 and it is the case of the plaintiff that fraudulent
power of attorney has been executed in favour of defendant no.2, dated
04.01.2006, by defendant no.1 and thereby a sale-deed has been executed
by defendant no.2 in his favour i.e. defendant no.3.
Second Appeal No.282 of 2025 :-
4.3 The purchaser i.e. defendant no.1 in Civil Suit No.132 of 2008 has
filed the suit being Civil Suit No.215 of 2008 that by virtue of sale deed
dated 10.01.2006 he has become the owner of the property. The said suit
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/282/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
filed with respect to survey no.57/1 and after considering the averments
of the plaintiff and oral evidence and giving findings on all the issues,
trial Court allowed the said suit declared the plaintiff i.e. defendant no.1
of Civil Suit No.132 of 2008 [by way of sale-deed dated 10.01.2006] the
purchaser of registered sale-deed dated 10.01.2006 to be the owner of the
property.
Second Appeal No.283 of 2025 :-
4.4 The purchaser i.e. defendant no.1, in Civil Suit No.132 of 2008 has
filed the suit being Civil Suit No.216 of 2008 that by virtue of sale deed
dated 10.01.2006 he has become the owner of the property. The said suit
filed with respect to survey no.57/2 and after considering the averments
of the plaintiff and oral evidence and giving findings on all the issues,
trial Court allowed the said suit and declared the plaintiff i.e. defendant
no.1 of Civil Suit No.132 of 2008 (by way of sale-deed dated 10.01.2006)
the purchaser of registered sale-deed dated 10.01.2006 to be the owner of
the property. The trial Court also declared the sale-deed executed on
21.06.2006 in favour of plaintiff of civil suit no.132 of 2008 is illegal and
not binding on defendant no.1 of civil suit no.132 of 2008.
5. For the sake of brevity, parties i.e. the plaintiffs and defendants of
Civil Suit No.132 of 2008 are referred herein as per their original status
as they are having in Civil Suit No.132 of 2008.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/282/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
FACTS :
6.1 The brief facts arising in the present appeals are that, the plaintiffs
purchased the suit property by registered sale-deed on 21.06.2006 being
registered sale-deed No.2281 with respect to survey no.57/2 having new
Survey No.65 of Mouje Alusana, Tal.Kadi, Dist.Mahesana, admeasuring
0-44-00 Hec.Are.Sq Mtr.and after execution of sale-deed, plaintiff came
to know that defendant nos.2 having forged power of attorney of
defendant no.1, dated 04.01.2006, has executed registered sale-deed in
favour of defendant no.3, dated 10.01.2006, for survey no.57/1 and 57/2
and, therefore, the plaintiff filed suit for cancellation of sale-deed
executed by defendant no.2, having power of attorney of defendant no.1
in favour of defendant no.3. The trial Court framed issues vide Exh.30,
which reads as under:
"[1] Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled to get the decree
for the declaration that transfer of the suit property by way of
sale on 10/01/2006 by defendant no.2 in favour of the
defendant no.3 is void, fraudulent and illegal ?
[2] Whether the plaintiff proves that she is the bonafide purchaser
of the suit property and she has right, title and interest over the
suit property?
[3] Wheather the plaintiff proves that she is in actual possession of
the suit property ?
[4] Wheather the plaintiff is entitled to get permanent injunction as
prayed for ?
[5] Wheather the plaintiff is entitled to get relief as prayed for ?
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/282/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
[6] What order and decree ?"
6.2 After considering the oral evidence and documentary evidence and
giving findings on all issues, trial Court dismissed said suit. Aggrieved by
the same, plaintiff filed appeal and after re-appreciating the evidence, the
first appellate Court dismissed the Regular Civil Appeal.
6.3 The defendant no.3 claiming to be owner by way of registered sale-
deed dated 10.01.2006, filed suit for declaration that pursuant to sale-
deed in favour of defendant no.3 by power of attorney of defendant no.1
dated 04.01.2006, the defendant no.3 has become owner of the suit
property and in view of the fact that 10.01.2006 defendant no.3 was
owner of the property, defendant no.1 could not have executed sale-deed
dated 21.06.2006 in favour of plaintiff. The trial Court framed issues vide
Exh. 26 and after considering the evidence trial Court allowed the said
suit. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, Regular Civil Appeal
No.61 of 2017 has been filed and after re-appreciating the evidence, the
first appellate Court, dismissed the appeal.
SUBMISSION OF THE PLAINTIFF :
7.1 Learned advocate for the plaintiff has mainly argued that neither
there is any consideration that has been paid by defendant no.3 to
defendant no.1 and if the sale-deed dated 10.01.2006 is perused, the same
is silent on the issue of paying any sale consideration to defendant no.1.
7.2 Learned advocate for the plaintiff has also argued that revenue
stamp for purchase of the Power of Attorney is dated 27.12.2005 and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/282/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
signature of the Notary is dated 04.01.2005 and, therefore, the said Power
of Attorney could not have been executed on 04.01.2005 in view of the
fact that stamp itself has been purchased on 27.12.2005 and, therefore,
concocted document has been executed by defendant no.2 and the sale
deed that has been executed in favour defendant no.3, is pursuant to said
forged power of attorney dated 04.01.2006 and, therefore, the trial Court
and appellate Court could not have come to conclusion that power of
attorney that has been executed in favour of defendant no.2, is valid
power of attorney and in view of the said fact trial Court and appellate
Court have not dealt with fact that fraud has been committed on
defendant no.1 and the plaintiff while execution of the power of attorney,
dated 04.01.2006 and sale-deed dated 10.01.2006 in view of the said fact
it has been argued that present Second Appeals are required to be
admitted on the basis of substantial questions of law, as suggested in the
respective appeals.
SUBMISSION OF THE DEFENDANT :
8. Learned advocate for the defendant has argued that neither
defendant no.1, has entered witness box nor has he proved that defendant
no.1 has not received any sale consideration or that the power of attorney
that has been executed in favour of defendant no.2 is fraudulent and
concocted document and in view of the said fact, the plaintiff of Civil
Suit No.132 of 2008 and Civil Suit No.131 of 2008 have miserably failed
to prove the said fact and, therefore, trial Court and the appellate Court
have rightly dismissed the Civil Suit Nos.132 of 2008 and 131 of 2008
and has rightly dismissed the Civil Appeal Nos.59 of 2017 and 60 of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/282/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
2017 and in view of the said fact, there are no substantial question of law
involved in the present Second Appeal and, therefore, all appeals are
required to be dismissed.
SUBMISSION OF DEFENDANT NO.3 :
9. Learned advocate for defendant no.3 has also argued that
substantial questions of law which the plaintiff has raised in the Second
Appeal are on factual aspects and, therefore, present Second Appeal
required to be dismissed at the admission stage.
ANALYSIS :
10.1 Having heard learned advocate for the parties and having
considered the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and
confirmed by the first appellate Court, following factual aspects are
emerged :
(i) the original owner is the party defendant in the present
proceedings;
(ii) it is the case of defendant no.3 that defendant no.1 has executed
power of attorney in favour of defendant no.2 on 04.01.2006;
(iii) defendant no.2 by virtue of said power of attorney has executed
registered sale-deed in favour of defendant no.3 dated
10.01.2006;
(iv) the plaintiff has purchased the suit property by registered sale-
deed from defendant no.1 on 21.06.2006;
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/282/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
(v) the defendant no.1 has not entered the witness box;
(vi) the defendant no.1 has not proved that power of attorney that
has been stated to have been executed on 04.01.2006 is
concocted and fabricated the document;
(vii) defendant no.1 has not proved that defendant no.1 has not
received sale consideration with respect to sale-deed executed
on 10.01.2006.
10.2 Moreover, if the terms of the sale-deed dated 21.06.2006 are
perused, it specifically states that the suit property was in the name of
Thakor Raisangji Cheharji and his power of attorney i.e. defendant no.2
has executed a sale-deed for an amount of Rs.22,000/- on 10.01.2006,
which has been registered before the Sub-registrar Office and entry to
that effect has also been entered in the revenue record on 07.02.2006 and
thereafter said entry has been cancelled. Therefore, the fact that
fraudulent power of attorney has been executed by defendant no.2 has not
been stated in the said sale-deed. But in fact, the original owner admits
that power of attorney was executed in favour of defendant no.2 and
defendant no.2 has, by way of exercising that power of attorney, executed
sale-deed dated 10.01.2006, however, the fact remains that defendant
no.1 i.e. original owners of the property had neither challenged the said
power of attorney, dated 04.01.2006, nor, had raised any claim with
respect to execution of sale-deed by way of power of attorney dated
10.01.2006. Moreover, the fact also remains that judgment and decree
passed in Civil Suit Nos.131 of 2008 and 132 of 2008 whereby the suit of
the plaintiff challenging the sale-deed dated 10.01.2006 and judgment
and decree passed in Regular Civil Appeal Nos.59 of 2017 and 60 of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/282/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
2017 whereby sale-deed dated 21.06.2006 has been quashed and set aside
has not been challenged by original owner i.e. defendant no.1. The
defendant no.1 has also not deposed before the Court that he has not
executed power of attorney nor has he deposed that he has not received
any sale consideration with respect to the sale-deed dated 10.01.2006.
10.3 Moreover, the date mentioned in the power of attorney has also
been discussed by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court.
Though it has been argued that the signatures of defendant no.1 have
been obtained on pre-drafted power of attorney and later on some
numbers have been written and the sale transaction has occurred on the
basis of so-called false, illegal and got-up power of attorney, the fact
remains that defendant no.1 viz. Thakor Raisangji has never objected or
challenged the same before any authority nor have they examined Notary
who had affirmed the power of attorney on 04.01.2006. The fact also
remains that if the said Power of Attorney is taken into consideration, in
the first page of said Power of Attorney, the Notary has given date as
'04.1.2006' and, therefore, the plaintiff cannot take advantage of the
typographical error in the said Power of Attorney.
10.4 The plaintiff cannot take advantage of typographical error in said
power of attorney, wherein the Notary has written date of 04.01.2005. In
view of the fact that as defendant no.1 viz. Raisangji has never challenged
the said sale-deed, dated 10.01.2006 and the power of attorney executed
on 04.01.2006 and the fact that defendant no.1 has also not challenged the
fact that he has not received any sale consideration with respect to power
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/282/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
of attorney dated 04.01.2006, the present Second Appeal is required to be
dismissed at the admission stage.
10.5 Moreover, the fact remains that defendant no.1 viz. Raisangji has
never challenged the judgment and decree by the trial Court which is
confirmed by the first appellate Court and fact also remains that when
defendant no.1 executed sale-deed dated 21.06.2006, defendant no.3 had
already become owner of suit property by registered sale-deed dated
10.01.2006 and therefore also defendant no.1 viz. Raisangji could not
have executed sale-deed dated 21.06.2006 and therefore also on these
facts, present second appeal is required to be dismissed.
10.6 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."
10.7 In the case of Jaichand (Dead) through Lrs and Other v.
Sahnulal and Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3864, the
Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/282/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
"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."
11. Under the circumstances, both the learned trial Court and first
appellate Court have rightly decided the issue between the parties in the
right perspective. The appellants 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
the admission stage. All connected civil applications shall stand rejected
accordingly.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)
MISHRA AMIT V.
