SHREERANG DEVELOPERS Vs. HIMMATLAL JAMNADAS MANIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . Since common points are involved in all these Appeals, with the consent of parties, all these Appeals are taken up for hearing together. So far as A.O. Nos. 190, 191, 282, 283 and 365 of 2002 are concerned, they are at the admisison stage and it is agreed that the said Appeals are also to be heard finally, along with the other Appeals, which are already admitted by this Court. Accordingly, the said Appeals are also ordered to be admitted and heard finally with the rest of the appeals.

(2.) There is a property, bearing Ward No.2, Nondh No.3, situated at Ring Road, Rustampura, Surat City. There was a big parcel of land, which originally belonged to one Sarguru Niyazali Shah and his four sons. There were many hutment dwellers occupying portion of the said property. The said hutment dwellers were the tenants of the original owner, Sarguru Niyazali Shah. The said original owner, Sarguru Niyazali Shah, by various sale deeds, sold away the said property, viz., 43 plots, to 22 persons, including the present plaintiffs. The said property was sold to the plaintiffs and other purchasers in October, 1983 by way of registered sale deed and accordingly, the plaintiffs became owners of the respective areas of the land in question. It is not in dispute that the said property was sold with the existing huts and 108 hutment dwellers were residing at the relevant time in the said land. Out of the said total 22 purchasers, who have purchased 43 plots, in all, in between them, 8 persons instituted Civil Suits before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Surat, for a declaration and injunction and submitted applications Exhibit 5 for interim injunction. So far as Regular Civil Suit No.703 of 1997 is concerned, the same was filed on 27.11.1997 and its new number is Special Civil Suit No.456 of 2001. The said suit is filed by one Haribhai Balubhai Parekh as Power-of-attorney holder of Kantaben Ramchandra Parte. The case of the plaintiff in the said suit is that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property, being the property admeasuring 127.10 sq.metres, situated at : City Survey No.2, bearing Ward No.2, Nondh No.3/11, situated at Ring Road, Rustampura, Surat City, that she purchased the said property from its original owner, Sarguru Niyazali Shah and his four sons, that she has become owner by virtue of the sale deed executed by the said original owners in her favour on 24.10.1983, that the plaintiff wanted to sell the said property and the intending purchaser, therefore, gave public notice through his Advocate Mr.Pravin P. Devmurari. The said notice was given on 22.10.1997, inviting objections. In response to the said notice, reply was given by the defendants in the newspaper on 30.10.1997 and, according to the plaintiff, on the basis of the said reply to the public notice, the plaintiff enquired from the office of the Sub Registrar, and on enquiry, it came to the notice of the plaintiff that a document of sale is executed by one Maneklal Bhagwandas Reshamwala as power-of-attorney holder of the plaintiff Kantaben Ramchandra Parte in favour of one Himmatlal Jamnadas Maniar and the sale consideration is mentioned as Rs.49,000.00 in the said document. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff had never given any such power-of-attorney to Maneklal Bhagwandas Reshamwala and the plaintiff had never signed any such power-of-attorney in favour of the said person. The case of the plaintiff, therefore, is that the said Maneklal Bhagwandas Reshamwala, in collusion with defendant Nos. 1 to 3, has prepared false documents and that, by virtue of the said document, the said Himmatlal Jamnadas Maniar cannot be said to have been the owner.

(3.) During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff submitted an application for interim injunction at Exhibit 5. The plaintiff also submitted another application at Exhibit 51, as, during the pendency of the said suit, a caveat was submitted by one Shrirang Developers, a partnership firm, to the effect that they have purchased the suit property and, therefore, no interim order may be given without hearing them. In view of the receipt of the said caveat, the plaintiff of the said suit submitted an application for joining the said purchasers, who were subsequently joined as defendants 5 to 17 in the aforesaid suit, being Regular Civil Suit No.703 of 1997, which is now converted into Special Civil Suit No.456 of 2001.