DEVENDRAGIRI MAHENDRAGIRI GOSWAMI Vs. MANOJGIRI ANANDGIRI GOSWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed by the petitioners - original plaintiffs, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order impugned dtd. 21/11/2022 passed in Civil Misc. Appeal No.9 of 2022 by the appellate Court below - Principal District Judge, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar, whereby the appellate Court below has dismissed the appeal. The said appeal is filed against the order dtd. 29/3/2022 passed below Exh.5 in Regular Civil Suit No.15 of 2020 by the trial Court i.e. Principal Civil Judge, Talod, whereby the trial Court has rejected the application below Exh.5 filed by the plaintiffs. There are concurrent findings by both the Courts below against the petitioners.

(2.) Learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that both the Courts below have erred in not considering the revenue record produced by the petitioners. He has submitted that the names of the petitioners are entered in the revenue record as legal heirs of the deceased occupiers. He has submitted that the respondents have not valid title over the suit property. He has submitted that the petitioners are the occupiers of the suit property since long. He has submitted that various litigation are pending between the parties before the revenue authorities. He has submitted that both the Courts below have wrongly held that the suit property is an ancestral one, which is not actually ancestral property. He has submitted that the suit property is transferred in the name of one deceased Bawa Shakargar by way of a tenancy right. He has submitted that the petitioners have never given consent for any revenue entry. He has submitted that the respondents have falsely made pedigree and documents as well as statements of settlement before the revenue authority in the name of the present petitioners. He has submitted that both the Courts below have not considered the facts and circumstances of the case and passed the impugned orders. He has submitted that both the impugned orders are required to be quashed and set aside by allowing this petition.

(3.) I have heard learned advocate for the petitioners - original plaintiffs. I have gone through the material on record. I have perused the impugned orders passed by both the Courts below. From record it transpires that the petitioners, who are the original plaintiffs, have filed Regular Civil Suit No.15 of 2020 for cancellation of sale deed, declaration and injunction, on the ground that, being the legal heirs of their deceased father, they are the owners and occupiers of the property being land bearing old survey No.113 and new Survey/Block No.674, admeasuring Hec.12-83- 22 Are situated at Village : Modhuka, Tal. Talod, District : Sabarkantha. In rebuttal, the defendants have produced evidence in support of their case before the Courts below. Prima facie, it appears that the issue between the parties is for the share in the suit property. Be it ancestral or not, is also an issue, in which this Court need not be gone into, at this stage. There are other ancillary issues involved in the present petition. However, at this stage, it would not be appropriate to go into it by this Court, since the main suit is still pending for adjudication. But, it is required to be observed here that both the Courts have considered the evidence produced by the parties qua the injunction application. Both the Courts below have not committed any error in rejecting the injunction application.