PRAVINKUMAR SHANKARLAL PATEL Vs. JADIBEN SOMABHAI SENMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Second Appeal has been filed under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the Code) challenging the judgement and decree passed by the 3 rd Additional District Judge, Mahesana, in Regular Civil Appeal no.73 of 2025, whereby the judgement and decree passed by Additional Civil Judge, Vijapur, in Regular Civil Suit no.14 of 2025 rejecting the plaint has been confirmed.

(2.) For the sake of brevity and convenience the parties are referred to as per their original status as that in the suit.

(3.) The brief facts arising in the present Second Appeal are that the plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit no.14 of 2025, challenging the sale deed executed by defendant nos.1 to 4 in favour of the defendant nos.5 and 6, dtd. 13/1/2025, to be illegal, ultra vires, null and void and void-ab-initio. It is the case of the plaintiff that the father of the defendant nos.1 to 4 had agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff in the year 2005 and in view of the fact that the suit property was a new tenure land i.e. restricted land and as sale deed could not be executed, the father of the defendant nos.1 to 4 did not execute the sale deed and it is the case of the plaintiff that father of the defendant nos.1 to 4 had taken entire sale consideration by cash and therefter, the possession of the suit property was handed over to the plaintiffs on 23/5/2005, and since then, the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property and since last more than 20 years, the plaintiff is in possession without any objection from the father of the defendant or defendant nos.1 to 4 and in view of the fact that the suit property was a new tenure land, the name of the defendants were stated to be owner of the property and in view of the fact that the plaintiff could not seek specific performance of the contract the defendant nos.1 to 4 in collusion with each other, executed sale deed in favour of the defendant nos.5 and 6 on 13/1/2025 and as defendant nos.5 and 6 tried to object the plaintiff's possession of the suit property, the plaintiff filed a suit on the ground that, as the plaintiff has purchased the property from defendant nos.1 to 4 since 23/5/2005, by taking the entire sale consideration, the plaintiff has become owner of the property and the fact that the plaintiff is in possession of the property since 23/5/2005 by virtue of agreement between the plaintiff and father of the defendant nos.1 to 4, the plaintiff has sought title by way of adverse possession. The Trial Court suo motu held that the plaintiff's claim of occupying the premises based on the fact that the possession was handed over was with respect to a property which is a new tenure land.