VASANTKUMAR KRUNALAL DAVE Vs. RASIKLAL VIDHYASHANKAR DAVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is filed by the original defendant and is directed against the concurrent findings of both the Courts below. The present respondents had approached the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Patan by filing Special Civil Suit No. 13 of 2000 praying for possession of the suit properties from the respondent, which came to be decreed vide judgment and decree dated 29.03.2012. The same was challenged by the defendant in the District Court by filing Regular Civil Appeal No.17 of 2012, which is dismissed by the 2 nd Additional District Judge, Patan vide judgment and decree dated 22.02.2019 and thereby has confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. It is this judgment and decree which is under challenge in this Second Appeal by the original defendant.

(2.) Mr.Gandhi, learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that both the Courts below fell in error while granting relief to the plaintiffs inasmuch as the present appellant could not enjoy the fruits of the suit property, since no joint account was opened and the shops in question were never rented. It is submitted that it was so, because the other side did not come forward for opening a joint bank account. It is further submitted that the Courts below materially erred while appreciating the evidence Exh.100. It is further submitted that the contention with regard to Arbitration is also not properly appreciated. It is also contended that the Appellate Court below erred procedurally, since the points for determination under Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, were not framed. It is submitted that substantial questions of law arise for consideration of this Court. It is submitted that this appeal be entertained. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Vinod Kumar Vs. Gangadhar reported in (2015) 1 SCC 391.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. Desai, learned advocate for the respondents - original plaintiffs has submitted that the Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence on record and none of the Courts below can be said to have committed any error. It is submitted that, no substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court. Learned advocate for the respondents has also taken this Court through the paper book and the reasons recorded by the Courts below on each issue. It is submitted that this appeal be dismissed.