RAJNIBALA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises from the judgment and decree dated 7-9-1983 passed by the learned City Civil Judge, Ahmedabad, in Civil Suit No.3434 of 1979 whereby the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.

(2.) The facts in short, as transpired from the judgment of the trial court, are that wada land admeasuring 41 sq.yards bearing City Survey No.689 of Kochrab, City and Taluka of Ahmedabad, of the Government was offered to the plaintiff by the Collector on 18-1-1972. Said offer was accepted by the plaintiff by paying a cheque for Rs.2306=25. However, Sanad was issued in the joint name of plaintiff and Khodabhai Somabhai in respect of the said land in City Survey Record on 3-7-1976. Hence, a suit was filed by the plaintiff stating that as the said land was situated adjoining to his property bearing Survey Nos.819 and 820, he accepted the offer. He therefore sought a declaration to declare him as the sole purchaser of land bearing Survey No.689 of Kochrab and a mandatory injunction against the State to delete the name of Khodabhai Somabhai from the Sanad as well as from the City Survey Record.

(3.) Resisting the suit, the defendant No.1 in the written statement contended that the wada land bearing Survey No.689 was leased out to Somabhai Ranchhodbhai for the period from 1-4-1897 to 31-3-1996. It was further contended that as Khodabhai Somabhai and Ghababhai Somabhai were heirs of Somabhai Ranchhodbhai, their names were entered in the City Survey Record. It was further contended that when it appeared that half of the portion of land of said survey number purchased by Dhavalbhai Somabhai was later on sold to the plaintiff, name of plaintiff appeared as the joint owner. It was further contended that thereafter when Khodabhai Somabhai applied for getting the land on permanent basis in 1971, an order was passed by the Collector that the said land be sold at 75% of the market value to these persons, however, joint names appeared in the City Survey Record and hence, when amount was paid by the plaintiff accepting the offer made by the Collector, the sale went in favour of both the names. Though the defendant No.2 filed her written statement resisting the suit, other defendants did not file it.