LAWS(GJH)-2004-3-96

PATEL RAJNIKANT DHULABHAI Vs. PATEL CHANDRAKANT DHULABHAI

Decided On March 26, 2004
PATEL RAJNIKANT DHULABHAI Appellant
V/S
PATEL CHANDRAKANT DHULABHAI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal From Order is filed against the order passed by the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Vadodara on 27.06.2003 below an application Exh.5 in Special Civil Suit No. 605/2003 whereby the interim relief prayed for by the original plaintiffs was refused.

(2.) It is the case of the appellants - original plaintiffs that one Chandulal Mulji Parikh and deceased Dhulabhai, father of the appellants had purchased a land bearing Survey Nos. 459/2, 464, 465, 466/1, 466/2, in all admeasuring Acre 6.19 Gunthas of village Atladra, Tal. & Dist. Baroda from one Parvatibai Ingle, by Regd. Sale Deed dated 29.03.1961. Though the property was purchased by deceased Dhulabhai Patel and though the consideration was paid by him from the fund of his Hindu Undivided Family, the name of respondent No.1 i.e. Chandrakant Dhulabhai was shown as the purchaser of the said property along Shri Chandulal Muljibhai Parikh as the respondent No.1 was the eldest son of deceased Dhulabhai Patel and the present appellants and the respondent Nos.4 & 5 were minors at the relevant time. It is the say of the appellants that the respondent No.1 was, at the relevant time, prosecuting his studies in the college and was not having any source of income whatsoever and it is only for the sake of convenience, the name of the respondent No.1 was shown in the Sale Deed as a purchaser of the said property along with the name of Shri Chandulal Muljibhai Parikh. It is also the say of the appellants that the amount of consideration was paid by the deceased Dhulabhai and in this view of the matter, the suit property was purchased from the funds of the Hindu Undivided Family and, therefore, it constituted a H.U.F. Property.

(3.) It is also the say of the appellants that no partition of the ancestral properties was ever taken place either during the life time of the deceased Dhulabhai or subsequent thereto and, therefore, all the properties of the HUF continued to be the HUF properties all throughout. This HUF properties were managed by Dhulabhai and on his death on 02.10.1986, the respondent No.1 used to manage all the said properties.