SOMABHAI RANCHODBHAI RABARI Vs. SURESHBHAI KRUSHNAKANT THAKKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Second Appeal is filed, under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 28/8/2023, passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 53 of 2019, by the learned Additional District Judge, Anand at Petlad, dismissing the appeal of the present appellants and confirming the judgment and decree dtd. 21/8/2019, passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 225 of 2013 (Old RCS No. 14/2008) by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Sojitra.

(2.) Learned Advocate Mr. Patel submitted that the appellant is the original plaintiff, who had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 225 of 2013, claiming adverse possession on the Suit land, which came to be dismissed. It was further submitted that the learned Judge has failed to appreciate the oral as well as the documentary evidences produced by the original plaintiff to prove his continuous possession for more than 25 years. It was further submitted that the appellate Court ought to have appreciated the fact that in the complaint filed by the defendant under the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020, the complainant-Sureshbhai Krishnakant Defendant No.1 has admitted the possession of the plaintiffs from 6/2/2008 and thus, the learned appellate Judge was required to appreciate the evidence with regard to the admission made by the complainant-Sureshbhai Krishnakant Thakkar with regard to adverse possession.

(3.) While countering the aforesaid submissions, learned Advocate Mr. Thakkar appearing for the Caveator-original defendants submitted that both the Courts have very specifically dealt with the pleadings and evidence of the plaintiffs and the trial Court has dismissed the Suit as it did not find any evidence from the side of the plaintiff to prove the case of adverse possession. Reference was also made to the observations made by the learned Judge in Regular Civil Suit No. 225 of 2013 and it was submitted that the record proves that by sale deed dtd. 22/1/1925, which was given Exhibit-86, indicates that Rabari Lakha Saiji bin Khoda purchased the Suit land from Molesalam Garasiya Vaghela Behcar Dhudhaji bin Bhagvandas in consideration of Rs.100.00. Thereafter, the Suit land were mortgaged with the elders of defendants in consideration of Rs.400.00. Since, the elders of the plaintiffs failed to repay the mortgage amount, the defendants filed Suit No. 355/42-43 to recover the mortgage amount and got decree and on the basis of the same, they filed Execution Petition No. 775/42 and after confiscation, in auction the defendants have purchased the Suit land and became the owners thereof. It was submitted that the aforesaid fact is duly supported by the evidence produced by the defendants. It was submitted that Exhibit-85 does not establish as to on which date Rabari Lakha Sayiji got the possession of the Suit land and submitted that if, at all, the plaintiffs wanted to prove their possession, the assessment records would have reflected their names, as the same is issued by the competent authority, independent of the fact as to who is the owner and the Assessment Sheet, Exhibit-81, does not reflect the names of the plaintiffs or their elders, as party in possession. Therefore, it was submitted that the plaintiffs failed to prove their possession by way of any documentary evidence.