LAWS(GJH)-2018-2-75

HARIPRASAD MOHANLAL MEHTA Vs. BHANUMATIBEN ALIAS BABUBEN

Decided On February 20, 2018
Hariprasad Mohanlal Mehta Appellant
V/S
Bhanumatiben Alias Babuben Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Appeals arise from the common order passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar dated 25.07.2016 below applications Exh.5 in Special Civil Suit No.109 of 2006, Regular Civil Suit No.453 of 2010 and Special Civil Suit No.309 of 2012. By the impugned order, the Trial Court has allowed Exh.5 applications filed by the original plaintiff and has ordered that status quo qua the suit properties shall be maintained by the defendants, during the pendency of the suits. Some of the original defendants, by these separate appeals, have challenged the said order.

(2.) Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

(3.) Mr. Mehul Shah, learned senior advocate, Mr. Rawani and Ms. Megha Jani learned advocates for the respective appellants have addressed the Court at length. All the learned advocates for the appellants have taken this Court extensively through the paper book. Attention of the Court is invited to the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and The Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937, including Mitakshara as well as Dayabhag schools of law, to contend that the plaintiff does not have prima-facie case on merits. Further, reference is also made to the law of limitation to contend that there was fatal delay on the part of the plaintiff vis-a-vis the date of purchase of the part of the suit lands, by the respective appellants. Additionally it is contended that, keeping in view the costs involved in the project being carried on the part of the suit land, the injunction granted by the Trial Court needs to be interfered with. Grievance is also made with regard to all the parties not being joined by the plaintiff. It is also contended that the plaintiff can not be permitted to put up the case which is not pleaded in the plaint before the Trial Court. It is submitted that the impugned order needs to be interfered with. In support of their submissions, learned advocates for the appellants have referred to the following decisions.