ARUNKUMAR PRITAMLAL Vs. RAMANLAL BHAGUBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the decree passed by the learned Judge City Civil Court Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No. 547 of 1963 on 20th April 1966. The facts of the above suit were in brief as under Two houses bearing survey Nos. 364/1/2 and 32 and two plots of land bearing survey Nos. 363 and 662 were purchased by the ancestors of the plaintiff Ramanlal Bhagubhai from one Bai Jakal the widow of Tarachnd Laxmichand under the sale deed executed by her on 13th June 1898. The aforesaid survey numbers 364/1/2 363 662 and 32 were subsequently renumbered as survey numbers 354A 355 356 and 357 respectively. The house bearing survey No. 357 was subsequently sold to Dolatram Nagindas on 29 The plaintiff is now the owner of the property bearing survey Nos. 354A 355 and 356. Bai Samrath who was the widow of Dolatchand Nagindas bequeathed house bearing S. No. 357 to the Pathshala and Panch of Gusa Parekhs Pole by her will dated 8-3-1945. Neither Dolatchand nor Bai Samrath had any title to the land bearing survey No. 355 but as the owner of house bearing survey No. 357 they were merely given a right to use the latrine constructed on that survey number. In the year 1962 the plaintiff came to know that the name of Bai Samrath was shown in the City Survey Record as a co-owner in respect of survey No. 355. He therefore made an application to the City Survey Officer to correct the record but his request was not accepted. He therefore filed the aforesaid suit to obtain a declaration that the open land bearing survey No. 355 and admeasuring 12 sq. yards was in his possession as an exclusive owner thereof and that the defendants who are the Vahivatdars of the Panch of Gusaparekhs pole had no right to or interest in that land.

(2.) The defendants by their written statements Exhs. 15 and 21 denied the suit. According to them their prodecessor-in-title namely Bai Samrath was joint owner of the suit property. It was their further contention that the suit was barred by limitation.

(3.) The learned trial Judge has held that the suit land was of the exclusive ownership of the plaintiff subject to the right of the defendants to use one of the latrines constructed on that land. He accordingly allowed the suit and being aggrieved by his decision the defendants have come in appeal.