RANCHHODBHAI MANILAL PATEL Vs. BAI ALKHIBEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals involve common questions on law and facts and hence, they are disposed of by this common judgment. Second Appeal No.302/1988 is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.10.1988 passed by the learned Asst. Judge, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar in Civil Appeal No.28/1986 whereby, the said appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 21.03.1986 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Prantij in Regular Civil Suit No.51/1983 was confirmed. Whereas, Second Appeal No.303/1987 is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.10.1988 passed by the learned Asst. Judge, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar in Civil Appeal No.5/1987 whereby, the said appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 21.03.1986 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Prantij in Regular Civil Suit No.41/1983 qua rejecting the relief of grant of permanent injunction against the appellant herein was set aside and the same was allowed.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that the appellant herein had preferred Regular Civil Suit No.51/1983 against the respondents before the Court of learned Civil Judge, Prantij for permanent injunction by way of restraining the defendants from causing any obstruction in respect of his possession of the property, as described in the plaint of the suit. In the said suit, it was inter alia stated that the suit property belonged to one Patel Narandas Maganbhai and that by way of registered Will dated 06.12.1982, the entire suit property was bequeathed in favour of the appellant. Pursuant to the death of said Patel Narandas Maganbhai, the appellant took possession of the suit property. However, the defendants were trying to cause obstructions in his possession and therefore, the suit came to be preferred.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by the above judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the appellant herein preferred Civil Appeal No.28/1986 whereas, defendant no.1 herein preferred Civil Appeal No.5/1987. Civil Appeal No.28/1986 preferred by the appellant herein was dismissed vide order dated 15.10.1988 whereas, Civil Appeal No.5/1987 preferred by defendant no.1 herein was allowed whereby, the relief of permanent injunction against the appellant herein, which was rejected by the trial Court, came to be allowed and permanent injunction was granted against the appellant herein.