RAVJIBHAI MATHURBHAI SOLANKI Vs. BIJALBHAI DEVJIBHAI PRAJAPATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The aforesaid First Appeals are filed by the original defendants. First Appeal No. 889 of 1984 has been filed by original defendants nos. 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15; whereas First Appeal No. 1118 of 1984 has been filed by original defendants nos. 16, 17, 18 and 19. These appeals have been filed by them for challenging the judgment and decree dated 27th March, 1984 passed by the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge [S.D.] Nadiad in Special Civil Suit No. 15 of 1982 allowing the suit of the original plaintiffs and passing the decree of specific performance directing original defendants nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6 to 19 to execute sale deeds in favour of original plaintiffs upon their paying the balance amount of Rs.3,37,800/=.

(2.) From the record of the case and in particular plaint, case of the plaintiffs appears to be that the original defendants nos. 1 and 2, namely Ravjibhai Mathurbhai Solanki and Gaguji Mathurbhai Solanki were brothers. They were the tenants of lands bearing survey nos. 2415/3 admeasuring A-0 Guntha-26 and survey no. 2415/2 admeasuring A-0 Guntha-25. Further defendant no. 2 was also tenant of land bearing survey no. 2416/1 admeasuring A-0 Guntha-22. These lands were new tenure and situated on the outskirts of Anand town. It is the say of the plaintiffs that by virtue of the provisions of the Bombay Agricultural Lands and Tenancy Act (for short 'Tenancy Act') the said defendants had become the owners of the said lands after paying the amount determined by the tenancy Court to the original owner of land and their names were accordingly entered into the revenue records. It is the further say of the plaintiffs that with the introduction of town planning scheme, these lands were covered under it and in place of these lands, the defendants were given the lands of old tenure, which were situated away from the aforesaid agricultural lands and which were numbered as Final Plot Nos. 432/2, 432 and 432/4. Defendants nos. 1 and 2 were put in actual possession of the final plots. Since the lands allotted to them under the scheme were slightly lesser than the lands held by them earlier, defendants have been paid compensation of Rs.40,000/=. It is the say of the plaintiffs that for survey no. 2415/3 admeasuring 24 Gunthas defendants were given final plot no. 432/2 admeasuring 2185-93-75 sq. mtrs., for land bearing survey no. 2416/1 admeasuring 22 Gunthas final plot no. 432/4 admeasuring 1037-50 sq. mtrs. and land bearing survey no. 2415/2 (29 Gunthas) final plot no. 432 were given to defendants nos. 1 and 2. The total land allotted to these defendants was 4843 sq. mtrs. The boundaries of these lands have been adequately described in the plaint.

(3.) The suit came to be resisted by the defendants. Defendant no. 1 filed his written statement at Exh. 30. It was contended by the defendant that the suit was false and that they had never executed any agreement of sale on 24th March, 1980 in favour of the plaintiffs. He also denied that till the time the document was executed, the plaintiffs had already paid a sum of Rs.27,000/=. He had further denied that there was any oral contract entered into between the plaintiffs and defendants nos. 1 and 2 whereby it was agreed to sell the suit lands to them by defendants by charging price of Rs.10,000/= per Guntha. He had further contended that the entire story with regard to payments made on different dates and total amount of Rs.72,200/- having been paid to defendants nos. 1 and 2 or the power of attorney holder of defendant no. 2 was concocted and false and the receipts have been fabricated by committing forgery. It is further stated by defendant no. 1 that the document dated 24th March, 1980 purporting to be an agreement to sell is nothing but a glaring instance of forgery. According to him, the plaintiffs have fabricated these documents by forging the signatures of the defendants with a view to grab the property of defendants nos. 1 and 2. It is his say that so far payment of Rs.8,000/= is concerned, it was paid to the defendants to meet the expenses incurred by them for the litigations pending in revenue Court and this Court in respect of the suit land and it was also agreed by defendants nos. 1 and 2 to repay the said amount with interest. It is further stated that on 10th April, 1980 defendants have paid a sum of Rs.9,000/= i.e. Rs.8,000/= towards principal amount and Rs.1,000/= by way of interest to the plaintiffs, for which a writing was executed on the stamp paper of Rs.10/=. It was further stated that since the entire claim of the plaintiffs is based on a forged document, no reliefs can be granted to them. It was, therefore, prayed that the suit of the plaintiffs be dismissed with costs and they may be directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,000/= for causing unnecessary harassment to the defendants.