NETRAMANI PATEL AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by defendants 1 to 3 against a reversing judgment.

(2.) The plaintiff-respondent-1 instituted the suit for declaration of right, title, interest over the suit property, recovery of possession, permanent injunction and mesne profit. The case of the plaintiff was that Chhelia Bhainsal had two sons, namely, Labanidhar and Natabar. Hrushikesh and Sukadev, plaintiff, are sons of Labanidhar. Jambobati, defendant no.4 is the daughter of Hrushikesh. Natabar and his wife-Malabati died issueless. Chhelia, Labanidhar and Hrushikesh are dead. According to the plaintiff, Labanidhar and Natabar were separated in mess and property. The lands were separately recoded in their names in Sabik Record of Right. Natabar and his wife-Malabati died issueless. Hrushikesh and the plaintiff succeeded to the share of Natabar. Both of them were in possession of the ancestral lands separately for the sake of convenience. There was no partition by metes and bounds. As per the amicable arrangement between two brothers, the plaintiff remained in possession of the suit land. Hrushikesh died in jointness with the plaintiff in or about the year 1969. The plaintiff inherited the entire ancestral family property including the suit lands to the exclusion of Jambodati daughter of Hrushikesh, defendant no.4. The defendants 1 to 3 have no semblance of interest and possession over the suit land. They initiated a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. in respect of the suit land and got the ex parte order on 7.11.1982. The order made absolute on 1.1.1983. Being emboldened with the said order, defendant no.1 forcibly removed eight quintals of paddy raised by the plaintiff over the suit land and thereby caused a loss of Rs.1,000.00. With this factual scenario, the suit was instituted seeking the relief mentioned supra.

(3.) Defendants 1 to 3 filed written statement pleading, inter alia, that Hrushikesh and the plaintiff were separated in mess and property. They were in possession of their respective shares of land separately. According to them, the suit land was sold by Natabar and his wife-Malabati to their father-Bidyadhar in or about the year 1937 and 1943. The plaintiff admitted the same in an agreement dated 6.6.1969. They claimed title to the suit land by way of adverse possession. Defendant no.4 was set ex parte.