PARSHOTTAM VALJIBHAI Vs. JAY AMBE CARD CANE WORKS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Against the decision of learned Single Judge dated 20.12.1983 in First Appeal Nos. 1014/79 and 1015/79, these Letters Patent Appeals are preferred by the original defendants. Before the learned Single Judge, decision rendered in four Civil Suits which were tried together and disposed of by the trial Court by a common judgment, was attacked by the original plaintiff and on appreciation of evidence, learned Single Judge allowed the said appeals and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. It is against this decision of learned Single Judge, the original defendants have preferred these two Letters Patent Appeals. As the defendants were occupying huts in a part of land bearing No. 66/67 of Shahpur Ward, Near Municipal Fire Brigade, Shahpur, Ahmedabad, the plaintiff approached the Court, inter alia, alleging that the respondents were mere trespassers and that they should be evicted.

(2.) The plot in question was handed over to one Hiraben Hargovandas by a registered lease-deed for a period of 999 years by one Kazambhai Amirbhai on October 19, 1954. However, the said lease was cancelled on February 8, 1966. On the same day, said plot of land was transferred to Arvind Hargovandas & others. The plaintiff firm purchased this piece of land from Arvind Hargovandas and his co-sharers. As contended in the plaint, the land was open and was not let to any one or any portion of land was not let to any one. Without consent or permission of the owner, the defendants committed trespass and fraudulently got their names entered in the municipal record without paying any tax.

(3.) From the judgment, it transpires that the trial Court was called upon to determine two issues namely (i) whether the plaintiff firm proves that the defendants were trespassers on the suit land, and (ii) whether the defendant proves that they were tenant in respect of the portion of land which was in occupation of each defendant? As said earlier, the trial Court has held that the plaintiff firm failed to prove that the defendants were trespassers and dismissed the suit.