GOVINDBHAI SUBABHAI TADVI Vs. NARMADABEN HIMMATBHAI MAHURBHAI RAJWADI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Second Appeals have been filed by the applicant-original plaintiffs raising the following substantial question of law : Whether both the courts below have erred in dismissing the suits of the plaintiffs on the ground that the possession of the defendants can be considered to be permissive possession as the defendants are in possession? Whether both the courts below have erred in not considering the legal position that the possession of the defendants cannot be said to be the permissive by virtue of an Agreement to Sell inasmuch as there is no reference of handing over the possession of the land in the Agreement to Sell itself? Whether both the courts below have erred in not decreeing the suit only on the ground that the defndants have nto led any evidence and not substantiated their pleadings or have not proved the documents produced on record? Whether both the courts below have erred in not considering the evidence on an independent Surveyor ( a Government Officer) appointed by the trial court? Whether both the courts below have erred in finding that the suit is filed after a period of about 20 years and, therefore, no relief can be granted?

(2.) LEARNED advocate Mr. Shah has tried to submit referring to the judgment of the trial court and lower appellate court that though the transaction was with regard to sale of land, more land has been encroached upon by the defendants. For that, he referred to the judgment and particularly the observations made therein with regard to the report of City Surveyor and submitted that the conclusion arrived at by both the courts below is erroneous. Therefore, the present appeals may be allowed.

(3.) THEREFORE, in light of the guidelines with regard to the scope of second appeal under sec. 100 of CPC as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment in the case of Mst. Sugani v. Rameshwar Das and anr., reported in AIR 2006 SC 2172, the present Second Appeals cannot be entertained and deserve to be dismissed and accordingly stand dismissed. No order as to costs.