RUPVIJAYSINH CHANDRASINH PARMAR Vs. SHAILESHBHAI BALVANTRAI DESAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Appeal from Order has been filed by the appellant-original plaintiff being aggrieved with the impugned order passed below Exh.5 in Special Civil Suit No.3 of 2010 by the Second Additional Senior Civil Judge, Valsad Camp at Vapi dated 24.11.2011 rejecting the application for injunction on the grounds stated in the memo of Appeal from Order.

(2.) HEARD learned Advocate Shri Sunit Shah appearing with learned Advocate Shri H.M.Jadeja for the appellant-original plaintiff and learned Advocate Shri A.J. Patel for respondents.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel Shri Sunit Shah has strenuously submitted that possession of the appellant- plaintiff is required to be protected as he was in settled possession. He also submitted that once the possession of the appellant-plaintiff is prima-facie established based on the material evidence like electricity bill, tax bill and other bills of dues of the authority, suggesting the use and occupation of the rooms/constructed premises by the appellant-plaintiff, it should have been protected in favour of the appellant. He submitted that the appellant-plaintiff is not the trespasser and even a possession of the trespasser is also required to be protected. He submitted that when the possession of the appellant-plaintiff is not as a trespasser when it is established, same should have been protected. He referred to the judgment in case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited V. Sriman Narayan and another reported in (2002) 5 SCC 760 and judgment in case of Rame Gowda V. M.Varadappa Naidu and another reported in (2004) 1 SCC 769. He pointedly referred to these judgments with regard to the settled possession and submitted that it has been observed that the settled possession gives right to protect such possession even the rightful owner may only recover it by taking recourse under the law. He pointedly referred to the observations made in Para Nos.8 and 9 of the said judgment. He has also referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court reported in 2011 (2) GLR 1449 in case of Pagi Aataji Kacharaji V. State of Gujarat and another to support his submissions that it is very clear that the entries made in the record do not create any title to the property since such entries are only enable the State for collection of tax. He further submitted that the revenue authority has limited powers with regard to mutation of the entries, but it cannot confer any title.