BHIKHABHAI BAPUBHAI Vs. BAI KASHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the appellant- original plaintiff to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karjan dated 31/07/1990 in Regular Civil Suit No. 199/1982 as well as the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned appellate Court-learned 4th Additional District Judge, Vadodara dated 15/12/2011 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 73/1990 by which the learned appellate Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the appellant-original plaintiff confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit filed by the appellant-original plaintiff.

(2.) THE appellant-original plaintiff instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 73/1990 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)Vadodara against the respondents-original defendants for permanent injunction restraining the respondents-original defendants from disturbing the possession of the appellant- original plaintiff. It appears that it was the case on behalf of the appellant-original plaintiff that he has purchased the disputed suit land in question from one Paragbhai Prabhudas vide sale deed dated 22/07/1982 for a sale consideration of Rs. 5000/- and he is in possession of the suit property since 1978, which is likely to be disturbed by the respondents- original defendants and, therefore, he instituted the aforesaid suit to protect his possession. On appreciation of evidence, the learned trial Court has specifically held that the appellant- original plaintiff has failed to prove that he was in possession of the suit property on the date on which he instituted the suit as in fact the appellant-original plaintiff himself filed the FIR against the respondents-original defendant earlier making a grievance that he has already been dispossessed by the respondents-original defendants illegally and thereafter the appellant-original plaintiff has failed to prove how again he got possession of the disputed property in question. Consequently, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit and refused to grant the permanent injunction as prayed for as the appellant- original plaintiff was not found to be in possession of the suit property in question at all on the day on which the suit was instituted. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karjan dated 31/07/1990 in Regular Civil Suit No. 199/1982 dismissing the same the appellant-original plaintiff preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 73/1990 before the learned appellate Court and the learned 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vadodara by impugned judgment and order dismissed the said appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit.