TANSUKH GOPALJI THAKKER Vs. VELJI BIJAL ASHA HARIJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant, who is the original plaintiff/petitioner, has preferred Special Civil Application No.9724 of 2019 against the order dated 22nd February 2019 passed below Exhibit 243 and 244 in Regular Civil Application No.46 of 2006 whereby the compromise purshis has been rejected and at the same time, the plaint has been rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter be referred to as "the CPC ") by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Mundra, Kachchh (hereinafter be referred to as "the Trial Court ").

(2.) The contention of the applicant - plaintiff is that he has filed the aforesaid suit for the land bearing revenue survey No.207/paiki admeasuring Acre 5 - 30 Guntha at Village: Nana Kapaya, Taluka: Mundra, District: Kachchh which was purchased by him by registered sale deed from the defendants on 9th January 1997 and on the ground that he has exclusive ownership and possession over the suit property. It is alleged that the entry was mutated in the revenue record and the suit property stands in the name of the plaintiff. As averred in the main petition, originally, the land was granted to one Harijan Asha Kana in the year 1965 by the Deputy Collector - Anjar, Kachchh and said Harijan Asha expired and his heirs were entered into revenue record on 7th July 1978. It is alleged that as the said original land owner - heirs of Harijan Asha could not repay the agricultural loan amount, the Bank put the suit land in auction on 19th March 1990. That ,in such auction, respondents No.3 and 4 have purchased the suit land on 4th June 1993. It is alleged that respondents No.3 and 4 have tried to get their names mutated in the revenue records, but they did not succeed. However, against refusal of mutation, they had not taken any action and, thereafter, the suit land was shown in the names of the original land owners - heirs of Harijan Asha in the revenue record.

(3.) Heard Mr.Mehul Shah, learned senior advocate with Mr.B. Y. Mankad, learned advocate for the applicant, Mr.Dhaval Vyas, learned advocate for respondent No.3, Mr.S. P. Majmudar, learned advocate for respondent No.4 and Mr.Vimal Purohit, learned advocate for respondent No.5 at length. Perused the materials placed on record and the decisions cited at the Bar.