KANJIBHAI SHITLABHAI Vs. SHIVDHARA DEVELOPERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the original plaintiff. He has challenged judgment and decree dated 15.9.2016 passed by learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Valsad, in Special Civil Suit No.111 of 2012. We are conscious that being a First Appeal, all questions of law and facts arising out of the judgment of the trial Court would be open to challenge before us. Admission of the First Appeal under such circumstances is, therefore, ordinarily granted liberally by the Court. However, having perused the materials on record and necessary evidence, we find that this is a case in which admission of the First Appeal would be futile.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts are that the appellant-plaintiff had instituted the suit for challenging the transactions in connection with the land bearing Survey No.106/3 of Village-Abrama, District-Valsad. Prayer was to declare that such transactions were null and void. Further prayer was that the defendants be permanently injuncted from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land or to change the nature of the suit land in any manner and also injunct the defendants from transferring the suit land to any third party. These prayers were founded on the plaintiff's averments that his predecessor-in-title had purchased the suit land from one Gandabhai Lallubhai and Parshottam Pidiya and Shitla Harkha for a consideration of Rs. 1,751/- in the year 1966. Entry to this effect was also made in the revenue record on 27.2.1968. Names of the original owners were also deleted in the revenue records and the names of the predecessor-in-title came to be entered at the relevant time, which continued till the year 1977-78. The original land owners had thereafter also sold the land, which transaction was declared invalid under Section 73AA of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. The defendants had thereafter illegally and by playing mischief removed the names of the predecessor in title of the plaintiff from the land. Defendants no.1 and 2 relying on the revenue records also obtained permission for sale of the land under Section 73 AA of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and sold the same to defendant nos.3 and 4, which sale transaction according to the plaintiff was ab initio void.

(3.) The defendants appeared and opposed the suit. The trial Court framed following issues:-