PUNJAJI AMAJI PARMAR Vs. BHUDASAN GRAM PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the appellants- original defendants to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned 3 rd Civil Judge (Junior Division), Modasa dated 13/04/2000 in Regular Civil Suit No. 225/1993 as well as the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned appellate Court-learned Extra Assistant Judge, Sabarkantha Camp at Modasa dated 12/10/2004 in Civil Appeal No. 22/2000 by which the learned appellate Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the appellants-original defendants and has confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court decreeing the suit.

(2.) THE respondent-original plaintiff-Bhudasan Gram Panchayat, who was handed over the possession of the suit property by the State Government for management, gave the land to the appellants-original defendants from 1977 to 1978 under public auction for plantation and subsequently when the period under which the land was given to the appellants- original defendants had expired, despite notice the appellants- original defendants did not handover possession of the suit property to the respondent-original plaintiff from whom the possession was taken by them, the respondent-original plaintiff-Gram Panchayat instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 225/1993 against the appellants-original defendants in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Modasa for recovery of possession of the suit land. It is required to be noted that till the evidence of the respondent-original plaintiff was recorded the appellants-original defendants did not file the written statement, which came to be filed subsequently at a belated stage at Exh. 53. The suit was resisted by the appellants-original defendants by filing the written statement at Exh. 53 mainly on the ground that the suit is barred by the law of limitation; the suit is bad for non-joinder of proper parties (State Government) and also on the ground that as such they are the owners of the suit property. The learned trial Court framed the issues. Both the sides led the evidence, oral as well as documentary. On behalf of the respondent-original plaintiff, the order passed by the State Government to handover possession to the Panchayat for management and plantation came to be produced. On behalf of the respondent- original plaintiff notice was served upon the appellants-original defendants to vacate the suit premises and even the auction proceedings under which possession was given to the appellants-original defendants were also produced on record. On behalf of the appellants-original defendants documentary evidence at Exhs. 75 to 83 were produced, inclusive of the order dated 10/11/1947 by Dabha Thakore as well as the office order dated 25/11/1947 by Dabha Thkore to allot/give the land bearing Survey Nos. 460 and 482 to Somaji, the father original defendants nos. 2 and 3. On appreciation of evidence, the learned trial Court held all the issues against the appellants- original defendants and in favour of the respondent-original plaintiff and consequently decreed the suit for possession as well as for mesne profit. On appreciation of evidence, the learned trial Court held that the appellants-original defendants have failed to prove that their father had become the owner of the land bearing Survey Nos. 460 and 482 on the basis of the order issued by Dabha Thakore. Consequently the learned trial Court decreed the suit. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court- learned 3rd Civil Judge (Junior Division), Modasa dated 13/04/2000 in Regular Civil Suit No. 225/1993, the appellants- original defendants preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 22/2000 before the learned Assistant Judge, Sabarkantha and the learned appellate Court by impugned judgment and order dated 12/10/2004 has dismissed the said appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court decreeing the suit. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and orders passed by both the Courts below the appellants-original defendants have preferred the present Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) IN view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the present Second Appeal fails and the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No cost.