HEIRS OF PK PATEL Vs. LABHSHANKER PURSOTTAMBHAI TRIVEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed on 13/1/1995 in Regular Civil Appeal No.6 of 1990 by the Court of 3 rd Extra Assistant Judge, Kheda at Nadiad, confirming the judgment and decree dtd. 30/11/1989 passed by the learned Civil Judge(Junior Division) Nadiad in Regular Civil Suit No.217 of 1979 whereby the sale deed executed in favour of the deceased defendant Ravjibhai Unabhai Patel dtd. 25/2/1976 came to be set aside, the heirs of the original defendant no.1 has preferred this Second Appeal under Sec. 100 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) The appeal came to be admitted way back on 18/4/1995.

(3.) The main contention raised by the appellant is that the deceased defendant no.1 was bonafide purchaser of the property and he was in occupation of property in question as a tenant and therefore defendant no.2 as an administrator of the Panch-plaintiff has executed registered sale deed in his favour. It is also contended that consideration was paid to defendant no.2. It is also contended that both the Courts below have committed error of facts and law in holding that the sale deed executed between defendant no.1 and defendant no.2 is collusive one and without consideration and illegal. According to defendant no.1, he is third party and therefore, he has nothing to do with the facts that who is authorized person to execute sale deed on behalf of the Panch-plaintiff. It is also contended that the Panch-plaintiff was not a registered Trust and has not having any written rules and regulations and in absence thereof, each one of the administrator of the Panch can execute the sale deed in favour of defendant no.1, that factor itself cannot be said to be illegal. It is also contended that both the Courts below have committed serious error of facts in setting aside the registered sale deed executed in favour of the deceased defendant no.1.