PARBHUBHAI K PATEL Vs. DAHYABHAI KARSHANBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr.R.N.Shah, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.B.P. Dalal, learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) THE present suit was filed in the year 1982 by heirs, successors and legal representatives of one Dahyabhai Chhitabhai against Parbhubhai Karshanbhai Patel, Diwaliben widow of Karshanbhai Patel, Sukhiben daughter of Karshanbhai Patel, Jasuben Maganbhai and Parvatiben Thakorlal (last two being granddaughters of Karshanbhai) for declaration of title and possession of land of Survey No.419 admeasuring 6 Acres and 1 Guntha of village Vesma, Taluka Navsari, District Bulsar. For proper understanding of the matter, it would be necessary to understand the pedigree.

(3.) ONE Chhitabhai had two sons namely Dahyabhai (the elder one) and Karshanbhai (the younger son). The defendants are from the branch of Karshanbhai, while the plaintiffs are from the branch of Dahyabhai. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they had purchased the property after paying consideration and as the defendants were in possession and were asserting their hostile title in the revenue proceedings, they were required to file the suit. It was submitted that they have purchased the property, the title be declared in their favour and the decree for possession be granted. The defendants appeared before the court and submitted that Dahyabhai son of Chhitabhai migrated to Africa somewhere in the year 1933 and thereafter settled in United Kingdom. However, after paying some money, he had purchased the land in dispute. It is also the case of the defendants that Khandubhai son of Dahyabhai, in fact, was son of Karshanbhai, but went in adoption to Dahyabhai. It is also the case of the defendants that the transaction was benami, while in fact, the money was paid by the said Karshanbhai and he remained in possession of the property since after its purchase. In the alternative, it is submitted that the property was purchased by Dahyabhai and it was given to Karshanbhai for his maintenance. It is also asserted that somewhere in the year 1970, the name of Karshanbhai came to be recorded in the revenue records as occupant of the property and after death of Dahyabhai, the name of Karshanbhai continued on the record. It is also submitted that after death of Dahyabhai somewhere in the year 1973, nobody ever asserted their title and the defendants enjoyed exclusive possession of the property. It was further submitted that the said Karshanbhai died somewhere in the year 1979 and after his death, when the defendants wanted their name to be mutated in the records, the dispute arose and thereafter, the plaintiffs who are residing in United Kingdom, suddenly filed the suit.