Gujarat High Court
Rajendrakumar Ramratan Arora vs Sanklchand Jechandbhai Patel on 25 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/237/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 237 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 237 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
RAJENDRAKUMAR RAMRATAN ARORA & ANR.
Versus
SANKLCHAND JECHANDBHAI PATEL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HASMUKH C PATEL(1040) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
JENIL M SHAH(7840) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Date : 25/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "the Code")
challenging the judgment and decree, dated 19.04.2025,
passed by 3rd Additional District Judge, Gandhinagar in
Regular Civil Appeal No.21 of 2023, whereby the said appeal
has been dismissed.
2. For the sake of brevity and convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their status in the appeal.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/237/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025
undefined
3. The brief facts arising in the present appeal are that the Civil
Suit No.128 of 2017 was filed by respondent no.1, against
respondent nos.2 and 3 for specific performance of an
agreement dated 21.04.1995, with respect to the property
situated at Sub-District Gandhinagar, Taluka-Gandhinagar,
Mouje Gam Bhaat, Revenue Survey No.73/1 + 73/2,
admeasuring 8,195 square meters and in the said suit, a
compromise pursis was filed, vide Exhibit 13 and on
09.09.2017, the said suit was decided in Lok Adalat, in view
of the consent terms and a consent decree to that effect has
been drawn by the Court.
4. The appellant before the First Appellate Court was not a party
in the said suit and it was the case of the appellant that an
agreement to sale has been executed in favour of the appellant
by respondent nos.2 and 3, dated 08.05.2007 and therefore, the
appellant had preferred the First Appeal No.1260 of 2021,
before the High Court of Gujarat challenging the proceedings
of Special Civil Suit No.128 of 2017 and ultimately, the said
appeal was withdrawn in view of the fact that, a first appeal
will have to be filed before the District Court, hence the
appellant filed Regular Civil Appeal No.21 of 2023, whereby
the appellant sought a relief challenging the decree passed
below Exhibit 14 arrived at as per the compromise term filed
vide Exhibit 13, in Special Civil Suit No.128 of 2017 and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/237/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025
undefined
sought for relief of fresh and full Trial of the said suit.
5. The Appellate Court, after hearing the parties dismissed the
said appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by
the Trial Court in Special Civil Suit No.128 of 2017, hence the
present Second Appeal.
6. Learned advocate for the appellant has mainly argued that a
fraud has been created on the Court while filing the suit and
while filing the compromise pursis vide Exhibit 13, in view of
the fact that, in the plaint, the plaintiff has stated that the
agreement to sell is dated 21.04.1995, and the same is
registered before the Sub-Registrar office, at Serial No.1560,
but if the agreement to sell which is relied on by the plaintiff
of Civil Suit No.128 of 2017 is taken into consideration, the
said does not bear Entry No.1560, but the same bears entry
no.1562 and therefore, a fraud has been created on the Court
and therefore, the judgment passed by the Trial Court is
required to be quashed and set aside and the appeal that was
filed by the appellant was required to be granted.
7. It has been argued by the learned advocate for the appellant
that, if the document i.e. registered agreement to sell no.1560
dated 21.04.1995 is taken into consideration, the said pertains
to land situated at Village Kolavada and the parties involved in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/237/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025
undefined
the said agreement for sale, which bears registration no.1560
are Kanjibhai Chaudhary, Bhavanji Gopalji Chauhan, Baldev,
Gopalji Chauhan, and Ranjit Gopalji Chauhan, and therefore,
in the guise of stating agreement to sell no.1560, the plaintiff
and the defendant have filed a compromise pursis, whereby the
suit property at Village Bhaat has been mentioned.
8. The learned advocate for the appellant has also stated that the
Court has also not taken into consideration the documents that
were produced before the Court and the decree that has been
drawn vide Exhibit-14 is based on falsified pleadings and
documents and on suppression of material facts and in view of
the said fact, the Court has not taken into consideration the
fraud and perjury act of the respondents and the Appellate
Court could not have dismissed the said appeal.
9. The learned advocate for the appellant has also argued that the
Court also could not have taken into consideration, the fact
that there was a delay of five years and six months in
preferring the appeal, and that there was no requirement for
the appellant to file delay application to condone the delay in
view of the glaring fraud that has been committed by the
respondents and in view the said fact, the present Second
Appeal is required to be admitted on the substantial question
of law, which has been formulated in the memorandum of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/237/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025
undefined
appeal.
"1). Whether in the fact, circumstances of the case,
documentary evidence, admission in the pleading
about the fraud and fraudulent act of the
respondents in the suit property coupled with the
Regular Civil Suit to the effect that during the trial
is their any collusion of the party and said practices
not admitted by the respondents by not filing written
statement in the Regular Civil Appeal No. 21/2023
being contesting respondents ?
2). Whether in the fact and circumstances of the
case though the present appellant not party joint at
the time of proceedings of Regular Civil Suit No.
128/2017 who is victim and original sale agreement
holder from 2007 has now being party can
confirmed any title to any person ?
3). Whether the fact and circumstances of the case if
the Ld. Appellate Court has come to conclusion that
the agreement to sale has been entered in to the
Karardad is being fraud and fraudulent in that case
the decree for specific performance is required to be
passed ?
4). If appellants prove that they are ready and
willing to joined as a party in the original Special
Civil Suit bearing No. 128/2017, is it can be
consider by the Ld. Trial Court to a passed
performance perjury ? decree for specific who issue
regarding
5). If the court has come to conclusion that the
production of the sale deed before the Trial Court is
vitiated by fraud and fraudulent under the
circumstances the agreement to sale being valued
document, whether the decree for specific
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/237/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025
undefined
performance is required to be passed ?
6). Whether the appellants have not any knowledge
regarding the proceedings of the lower court and
when come to know about the proceedings and
approached the Hon'ble High Court and High Court
granted Delay Condone, Leave Application so in
that case whether the Regular Civil Appeal can be
dismissed on the issue of Delay Condone ?"
10. Per contra, learned senior advocate Mr.Mehul Shah for
learned advocate Mr.Jenil M.Shah for the respondent has
mainly argued that the appellant was not a party to the suit
proceeding and therefore the appellant could not challenge the
said decree passed in the Lok Adalat dated 09.09.2017.
Moreover, it has also been argued that the appellant does not
have any right, title, interest in the property and the plaintiff is
having only an agreement to sell dated 21.04.1995 and
therefore, on the basis of the said agreement to sell, the
plaintiff could not have claimed any right of challenge to the
said compromise decree.
11. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Mehul Shah for the
respondent also has argued that as the judgment and decree has
been passed, on compromise and as in the said suit, the
appellant was not a party to the proceedings the appellant
could not have challenged the said judgment and decree by
filing the appeal, in view of the fact that the appellant has
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/237/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025
undefined
neither sought leave of the Court before filing the appeal.
Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Mehul Shah has relied upon the
judgement reported in 2020 (1) GLR 586, in the case of
Sakina Sultan Ali soon Sara versus Sia Emami Ismail
Momin, Jama Samaj, wherein the Court has held that, if the
aggrieved party was not a party to the suit, the remedy
available to him to challenge the decree passed by the Court
on the ground of compromise between the parties to the suit
(consent decree) would be to file an appeal under Section
96(1) of the Code with the leave of the Appellate Court or to
file a review application before the Court which passed the
decree as may be permissible under Section 114 read with
Order XLVII of Code, and therefore, as the present appellant
has not sought any leave, the appeal itself was not
maintainable and has rightly been dismissed by the First
Appelalte Court.
12. Moreover, it has also been argued that as the
compromise that has been arrived at between the parties in
Lok Adalat under the provisions of Legal Services Authority
Act, 1987, more particularly Section 19, 20 and 23, no appeal
is maintainable against it at any Court, and if any party wants
to challenge such an award based on settlement, it can be done
only by filing a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, and that too on a limited ground and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/237/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025
undefined
therefore also the revision application could not have been
filed and the same is required to be dismissed.
13. With respect to the fact that the plaintiff is claiming to
have right by virtue of the agreement to sale that has been
entered into with respect to the suit property, the plaintiff has
not filed any suit for specific performance nor has any right of
the plaintiff been decided by the Court and therefore, as there
is no sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff, the said
document i.e. agreement to sell does not confer a valid title on
the appellant as, it is not a deed of conveyance as per Section
54 of the Transfer of Property Act and therefore the only right
that the appellant has is to seek specific performance for
execution of the sale deed and the said agreement to sell does
not create an interest or charge on the suit property, therefore,
the present appeal is required to be rejected as there are no
substantial question of law involved in the present Second
Appeal.
14. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties and having considered the judgment and
decree passed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, the
entire case of the appellant in the appeal are as under:
A. The appellant is claiming right on the suit property by way
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/237/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025
undefined
of agreement to sell executed on 21.04.1995 .
B . The appellant has not filed any suit for specific
performance and or cancellation of the said sale deed executed
in favour of defendants of Civil Suit No.128 of 2017.
C. It is a case of the appellant that in the guise of stating
registration no.1562, the plaintiff of Civil Suit No.128 of 2017
has himself stated registration no.1560, and therefore, the
same pertains to some other distinct property, and therefore,
the Trial Court could not have granted decree in terms of the
compromise that was entered into between the parties."
15. The defence that has been taken by the respondents are
as under:
A. In view of the fact that the appellant is trying to challenge
the compromise decree arrived at in Civil Suit NO.128 of
2017, and in view of the fact that the appellant was not a party
in the said Civil Suit, the only alternative that the appellant had
was either to file an appeal after seeking leave of the Court to
file the appeal and or file a review application before the Court
which passed decree and therefore the appeal could not have
been filed by the appellant without seeking leave of the court.
B . The appellant does not have any title in the property and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/237/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025
undefined
the only claim of the appellant is that by way of an agreement
to sell dated 21.04.1995, the suit property was to be sold to the
plaintiff and therefore the only claim that the appellant can
have is to file a suit for specific performance for execution of
the sale deed, and the appellant does not have any locus to
challenge the compromise decree that has been arrived at
between the respondents in Civil Suit No.128 of 2017.
C. The compromise that has been arrived at is by way of Lok
Adalat and therefore by virtue of Section 19, 20 and 23 of the
Legal Services Authority Act 1987, the same could not have
been challenged and the same being a decree of a Civil Court,
no appeal shall lye.
16. In view of the aforesaid dispute, the fact remains that
there is no document in favour of the appellant to suggest that
the appellant has become the owner of the property and that
the appellant has any title to the suit property, the entire case
of the appellant is based on the agreement to sell dated
21.04.1995, but the fact remains that the said agreement to sell
will not give any ownership rights and or title to the appellant.
The fact also remains that the appellant has neither filed any
suit for specific performance and or challenged the sale deed
that has been executed pursuant to the compromise, that has
been arrived at between the parties. Therefore, the only claim
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/237/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025
undefined
of the appellant is that a fraud has been created on the Court,
in view of the fact that a wrong registration number has been
stated in the plaint.
17. The learned Senior Advocate Mr.Mehul Shah has made
a statement that the document that has been produced along
with the plaint is with respect to property situated at Sub-
District Gandhinagar, Taluka-Gandhinagar, Mouje Gam
Bhaat and the same bears Registration no.1562. Therefore, the
suit was filed for specific performance was with respect to
Registration No.1562 with respect to the property situated at
property situated at Sub-District Gandhinagar, Taluka-
Gandhinagar, Mouje Gam Bhaat and therefore just because
there was a typographical error and the Registration No. is
stated to be 1560 in the plaint cannot be a ground to state that a
fraud has been created by the respondents while filing the
compromise pursis and getting the judgement and decree in
view of the said compromise decree.
18. If the averments of the plaint and the compromise are
taken into consideration, both the parties to the Civil Suit
No.128 of 2017, have specifically agreed to compromise their
dispute with respect to the agreement to sell, entered on
21.04.1995 with respect to property property situated at Sub-
District Gandhinagar, Taluka-Gandhinagar, Mouje Gam Bhaat
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/237/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025
undefined
and therefore, it cannot be said that any kind of fraud has been
created on the Court while passing the decree with respect to
property situated at property situated at Sub-District
Gandhinagar, Taluka-Gandhinagar, Mouje Gam Bhaat. The
fact also remains that the present appellant is not a party in
Civil Suit No.128 of 2017, and therefore, in view of the
judgment of the Full Bench in the case of Sakina Sultanali
Sunesara (Momin) Vs. Shia Imami Ismaili Momin Jemat
Samaj reported in 2019 (0) AIJEL-HC 240951, wherein it
has been held that as under:
"40(vii) If the aggrieved party was not the party to
the suit, the remedy available to him to challenge the
decree passed by the Court on the basis of
compromise between the parties to the suit (consent
decree), would be to file an appeal under Section
96(1) of CPC, with the leave of the appellate Court,
or to file a review application before the Court, which
passed the decree, as may be permissible under
Section 114 read with Order XLVII of CPC. "
19. The judgment relied upon by the learned advocate will
be applicable to the facts of the present case.
20. Moreover, it will also have to be taken into consideration
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/237/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025
undefined
that the compromise that has been between arrived at between
the parties was in Lok Adalat and the fact remains that while
filing the appeal the appellant has not sought for any leave to
appeal and therefore also, the First Appellate Court has rightly
dismissed the said appeal. The fact also will have to be taken
into consideration that the compromise was arrived at between
the parties on 09.09.2017 and the appeal that has been filed
challenging the said judgment and decree passed by the Trial
Court by a party, who was not a party in the said suit has been
challenged in the year 2023, there is no application to condone
the delay in filing the said appeal. In view of the said fact, the
Trial Court has rightly appear dismissed the appeal.
21. This court has also taken into consideration the fact that
the appellant is only claiming right by way of an agreement to
sell and therefore also the appellant will not have any right to
challenge the said compromise decree passed in Civil Suit
No.128 of 2017.
22.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:-
"28. It is thus clear that under Section 100
CPC, the High Court cannot interfere with
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/237/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025
undefined
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."
23. Under the circumstances, the First Appellate Court has rightly
decided the issue between the parties in the right perspective and as stated
above no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. The
appellants have failed to prove their case 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. In view of the disposal of the main Second Appeal, the
connected Civil Application does not survive and the same is accordingly
disposed of.
Sd/-
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)
URIL RANA
