AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. Justice Rajesh H. Shukla
Present Appeal from Order has been filed by the appellant-original plaintiff being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed below Exhs. 6-7 in Civil Suit (CCC) No. 1859 of 2011 by the Civil Court, Ahmedabad dated 20.10.2012 rejecting the application for injunction on the grounds stated in the memo of appeal. Heard learned counsel, Mr. B.P. Gupta for the appellant and learned counsel, Mr. Nehal Joshi for the respondent no. 5 on caveat.
Learned counsel, Mr. Gupta has referred to the papers and tried to submit that apart from the title, he is in possession, for which, there is no discussion made in the impugned order. He has submitted that he is in settled possession of the land in question and, therefore, he could not be disturbed without following procedure of law. He also referred to the report of the Court Commissioner.
However, learned counsel, Mr. Joshi referred to the papers and submitted that he is said to have purchased the property from the predecessor in title, which is a joint property without the signature of the original owners. He submitted that this aspect has not been discussed and, therefore, the predecessor in title cannot give a better title than what he has. Similarly for the possession, he has referred to the papers and submitted that original survey no. 560 has been given plot no. 43A according to the T.P. Scheme, which is in his name, for which, he has referred to the entries at page nos. 56 and 57.
It is required to be mentioned that the submissions, which have been made by both sides, have a reference to earlier transactions and admittedly the plaintiff has not been able to produce on record any documentary evidence with regard to the title or even possession, by which, even prima facie his possession may be established or shown. There is a reference to T.P. Office and communication dated 22.07.2011 also at Page No. 49, where there is a reference to the land in question. Therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned order passed by the City Civil & Sessions Court is erroneous and there is no reason to interfere with the same.
The submission made by learned counsel, Mr. Gupta that the learned judge has not discussed about the possession is also misconceived as even the plaintiff has not produced any documentary evidence for his possession and, therefore, after discussing the relevant documents, the order has been passed, which does not call for any interference.
The submission made by learned counsel, Mr. Gupta about the settled possession has to be prima facie borne out on the basis of the material and evidence, which is not the case. In fact as repeatedly observed, the appellant-original plaintiff has not prima facie shown any evidence with regard to his possession. Therefore, the present Appeal from order cannot be entertained and deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the present Appeal from Order stands dismissed.