JADEJA NAVALBA SATUBHA Vs. PATHAN KARIM REHMAN

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 judgment and decree dtd. 22/11/2023 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.145 of 2019 passed by the learned 8th Additional District Judge, Bhuj at Kachchh whereby the appeal preferred by the appellants herein was dismissed and the judgment and decree dtd. 25/10/2019 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.27 of 2009 by the Additional Civil Court, Mandvi-Kutchch, wherein the suit of the appellants was dismissed, was confirmed.

(2.) The appellants preferred the suit for recovery of possession of the suit land R.S.No.159 of village Mota Goniyasar, Dub-district Mandvi-Kutch and also for cancellation of registered sale deed dtd. 25/3/1996 stating it as null and void by stating that the suit land was ancestral land of the plaintiff as the status of Inamdar; that the suit belonged to plaintiffs' ancestor Jadeja Dungarji Sabraji and Deshalji Ganda and it was placed under mortgage before Joshi Shivji Vaghaji in Vikram Samvant 1947 Kartak Sud 7th by Ruparibai, the suit land was further sold out with mortgage by the heirs of Joshi Shivji Vaghaji before Shri Swaminarayan Nar Narayan Dev Temple on Vikram Samvant 2003 Magsar Vad 11th and it was under possession of Pragji Ramji as the agriculturist of vitantar Shri Swaminarayan Nar Narayan Dev Temple; the redemption deed was executed by Shri Swaminarayan Nar Narayan Dev Temple on 6/7/2007 and there is no right of Pragji Ramji as he was the agriculturist of the mortgagee; that the possession of Pragji Ramji is illegal and the heirs of the Pragji Ramji sold the property to the defendants which is challenged. It is further stated by the petitioners in the suit plaint that the said Pragji Ramji filed case no.990 of 1971 for the possessory right under Inam Abolition Act and his name was not running in the land, even though he received an order in his favour; that the right of tenancy on the property which was under mortgage was denied and stated that the order was without their knowledge and without service of any notice; that the execution of sale deed on 25/3/1996 by the heirs of Pragji Ramji in favour of the defendant is not legal and therefore the suit is filed.

(3.) Heard learned advocate Mr.Barot for the appellants.