PADMABEN Vs. DHIRUBHAI FATEHSINGHBHAI GAMIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Advocate Mr. H.P. Baxi for the appellants, who were the original defendants in Regular Civil Suit No.57 of 2011, contends that on dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff had preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.40 of 2019, which came to be allowed on 29/9/2023, and when there is no concurrent finding of both the courts, then Second Appeal is required to be admitted, since the very cause of two contrary observations would raise a substantial question of law and facts.

(2.) Advocate Mr. Baxi submitted that the plaintiff cannot succeed on the weakness of the defendants, and further stated that plaintiff had no right to file the suit as a Manager of Hindu undivided family, since he is a single male member. Mr. Baxi further stated that the sale deed on which reliance had been placed, was not produced before the trial Court and only a photocopy came to be exhibited; thus, stated that the attestation and execution of the original was required to be proved, and when original sale deed is not on record, the same cannot be believed. Advocate Mr. Baxi further submitted that the sale deed relied upon by the plaintiff does not suggest that the possession of the suit land followed the title, as claimed by the plaintiff.

(3.) Advocate Mr. Baxi stated that revenue entries have no prima facie value and, if at all, the family arrangement, which is relied upon, is to be considered, then it requires compulsory registration, which has not been so in the present matter. The core issues have not been decided by the appellate Court and the reasoned order of the trial Court has been set aside, and the facts, which were not recorded, have been considered.