UMESHBHAI SUMANBHAI CHAMADBHAI CHAUDHARI Vs. TULSIBHAI SUDHARABHAI CHAUDHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellants - original plaintiffs against the concurrent findings of the learned courts below arising out of the Regular Civil Suit No.24 of 2012 filed by the appellants - plaintiffs wherein respondent - defendant filed application Ex.30 under Order 7 Rule 11(a)(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking rejection of the plaint, which was allowed and the plaint was rejected by the learned 2 nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mangrol, against which the appellants - original plaintiffs preferred Regular Civil Appeal and after hearing the parties at length, the said appeal came to be dismissed by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Surat vide order dtd. 31/11/2021. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellants - original plaintiffs have preferred the present Appeal From Order.

(2.) Heard Mr.R.E. Variava, learned advocate for the appellants. He has submitted that both the courts below have not appreciated the plaint and the evidence produced on record and failed to appreciate that the question of limitation and cause of action was mixed question of law and facts, however, the same has not been taken into consideration. It is submitted that the provisions of Sec. 73, 73(A), 73(AA), 73(AC) and 73(AD) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code are not considered and the Civil Court though has no jurisdiction for transfer of the land involved under the Gujarat Land Revenue Code belonging to the tribal community without prior permission of the Collector, the Court cannot entertain the suit and has erred in dismissing the suit on the ground of limitation.

(3.) I have examined the findings of both the courts on the issue raised in the suit. Upon examination of the judgement and order of both the courts below, no infirmity, illegality, perversity or impropriety is pointed out in the concurrent findings of the facts rendered by the courts below by the learned advocate for the appellant. Not only that, the learned advocate for the appellant is unable to show to this court any finding recorded by the learned courts is without any evidence or there is any illegality in the findings.