ARJANBHAI TALSHIBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is filed under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC' for short) being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common order and decree dtd. 16/4/2021 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Bhavnagar in Regular Civil Appeal No.57 of 2017 and allied matters as well as the judgment and decree dtd. 1/7/2017 passed by the learned 8th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhavnagar in Regular Civil suit No.450 of 2009 by suggesting the following substantial questions of law:

(2.) Heard learned advocates for the parties.

(3.) Per contra, learned senior advocate Mr.Mehta with learned advocate Ms.Raol has strongly objected to the contentions and has submitted that there is no substantial question of law as arising from the appeal and therefore the appeal is required to be dismissed. He submitted that the civil court does not have the jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which is passed under the Ceiling Act and therefore the suit is expressly barred under Sec. 47 of the Ceiling Act read with Sec. 9 of CPC; he submitted that as regards the prayer that the possession of subject land is on the basis of a unregistered Satakhat, the Satakhat is neither a document of title nor a deed of transfer of property by sale as Sec. 54 of the Transfer of Property Act mandates registration of sale document under Sec. 17 of the Registration Act, which has not been done in the present case; that the appellant cannot claim consequential prayer for possession without filing a suit for specific performance; that the learned trial Court has rightly given findings on all the issues in view of Order 14 Rule 2 of CPC which mandates the trial court to pronounce on all the issues in order to avoid the possibility of remanding back the matter after the decision on preliminary issues; that the concurrent findings of fact have been arrived by the learned courts below and though this Court has power to review the concurrent findings of fact, ordinarily they should be interfered with only in exceptional cases, where the findings are such that "it shocks the conscience of the Court or by disregard to the forms of legal process or some violation of some principles of natural justice or otherwise substantial and grave injustice has been done", which is the case in the present case and therefore, no interference by this Court is required. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss this appeal as there is no gross error committed by the learned courts below in dismissing the suit and the appeal.