AMBA AGRO INDUSTRIES Vs. HANUMANTSINHJI MADANSINHJI JADEJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 12 in the original suit No. 19 of 1997 against the order dated 5-9-1997 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kutch whereby he confirmed the ad interim ex parte order made on 5-9-1997 on an application, Exh. 5 made by the plaintiff for grant of temporary injunction in its favour, directing the defendants to maintain status quo in regard to the suit property known as Vijay Vilas Palace situated at Kathada, Taluka : Mandvi-Kachchh and made to last the decision of the suit.

(2.) The suit has been filed by Hanumantsinhji Madansinhji Jadeja in all against 13 defendants including the present appellants. The suit was for cancellation of sale deed executed by Maharao Madansinhji on 14-7-1972 as rectified by a deed of rectification dated 24-7-1972 in favour of the present appellant No. 1. Appellant No. 1 is a registered partnership firm of which appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are present partners. Respondent Nos. 2 to 9 (original defendant Nos. 3 to 10) are alleged to be erstwhile partners of appellant No. 1 who since long are alleged to have ceased to be partners and are made formal parties to the suit as at the time when the sale deed in question was executed they had interest in the partnership firm. The defendant No. 11 Modi Mafatlal Mangaldas was the person who at the initial stage was appointed to execute the sale deed and since sale deed and rectification deed were in fact executed he also remain to be a formal party. Defendant No. 13 and respondent No. 11 is the State of Gujarat which has been impleaded as a party as the plaintiff relies on some orders made by State of Gujarat in Agricultural Land Ceiling proceedings in respect of the property in question. However, for the purpose of securing the plaintiffs' right to get the sale set aside and make it available for succession to the estate of Maharao Madansinhji who died on 21-6-1991, it remains a formal party. These parties, viz., respondent Nos. 2 to 11 are not affected by outcome of this appeal either. For the purpose of present appeal, the presence of respondent Nos. 2 to 10 is, therefore, dispensed with as they are not necessary for the decision of this appeal.

(3.) Plaintiff-respondent No. 1 lay claim to the property in question under a Will executed by Maharao Madansinhji on 17-12-1985. It is the claim of the plaintiff that the transfer made by Maharao Madansinhji during his life on 14-7-1972 being contrary to the provisions of Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 was invalid and inoperative, the property continued to be the property of Maharao Madansinhji in respect of which he could make disposition by a testamentary document. Even otherwise, in the absence of testamentary disposition, the property would have devolved on the heirs of Maharao Madansinhji as an intestate succession because the transfer dated 14-7-1972 being invalid, the rights in the property in dispute never passed to the purchasers. For this purpose, reliance was placed on Sec. 8 of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 and orders made by authorities under the Act of 1960. In the first instance, by order dated 2-2-1979, the competent authority held the transfer not to be binding within the meaning of Sec. 8 of the Act, which in further proceedings was set aside by order dated 7-2-1997 of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and case was remanded back to the original authority for deciding the question afresh.