DAHYABHAI RATANLAL Vs. DAHIBEN D/O CHHAGANLAL PARSHOTAMDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the appellant original plaintiff challenging the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Petlad dated 30.4.1985 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.121 of 1980, by which, the learned trial Court has dismissed the said suit. The appellant originalplaintiff has also challenged the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court learned Assistant Judge, Nadiad dated 17.7.1990 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 203 of 1985, by which, the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the said appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit.

(2.) THE appellant herein original plaintiff instituted Regular Civil Suit No.203 of 1985 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Petlad against the defendants heir of Bai Ganga wd/o Chhaganlal Parshotamdas for declaration and permanent injunction. It was the case on behalf of the plaintiff that he is the owner and occupier of the land bearing Survey No.381, Block No.600 situated at village Agas Tal: Petlad. That the mother of the defendant deceased Bai Ganga was widow of the son of said Parshotamdas Jamnadas. That the deceased Bai Ganga has got right of maintenance from the suit field. Pursuant to the deed of maintenance dated 9.7.1926 executed between Bai Ganga and Shah Parshotamdas Jamnadas (Exh.83). That under the said agreement she was entitled to get maintenance out of suit field during the lifetime. That the Bai Ganga died on 19.4.1980 and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to take possession of the suit field as revisioner because they are the legal heirs of Parshotamdas Jamnadas. It was the case on behalf of the plaintiffs that after the death of Bai Ganga, her daughters have no right, title or interest in the suit field, therefor, it was prayed for declaration that the defendants have no right, title or interest in the suit land and still interfered with the possession of the plaintiff and therefore, the plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

(3.) SHRI H.M. Parikh, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellant original plaintiff and Shri S.M. Shah, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondentoriginal defendants.