1. Heard learned advocate Mr. J. G. Vaghela for the petitioners. The learned advocate for the petitioners has vehemently submitted that while considering the revenue record, the trial Court has not appreciated in correct perspective and has committed error in not considering the fact that the petitioners original plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property since 1996, where their names were mutated vide Entry No. 541.
1.1 The learned advocate for the petitioners further submitted that for considering the possession of the respondent original defendant, the affidavits of well-wishers have been produced by the respondent original defendant and at the primary stage, the said affidavits have no evidentiary value. Moreover, considering the revenue record, the petitioners - original plaintiffs are cultivating the disputed land bearing Survey No. 165 since last many years, because the said survey number is the ancestral property of the petitioners and hence, the trial Court should protect the possession, more particularly, when the petitioners have challenged 45 years old Sale Deed, produced by the respondent original defendant.
1.2 The learned advocate for the petitioners further submitted that if during the pendency of the suit before the trial Court the respondent original defendant sells the land, in that case, the petitioners have to face the situation which cannot be compensated in terms of money.
2. I have perused the order dated 27/04/2012 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Babra below application exh. 5 in Regular Civil Suit No. 2 of 2012. I have also perused the order dated 22/08/2012, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amreli in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 21 of 2012. It is pertinent to note that the respondent original defendant has come with the specific case that the property in dispute i.e. Survey No. 165 has been sold through Registered Sale Deed and the said Registered Sale Deed is dated 01/06/1967 and it is observed by both the learned Courts below that the said document has come from the proper custody i.e. respondent original defendant in whose favour the same has been executed. Considering the said aspect and considering the concurrent findings of both the learned Courts below and in light of the above-referred document, I am of the view that simply because in the revenue record some entry is there in the year 1996, more particularly, Entry No. 541, which prima facie appears not covering the Survey No. 165, the prima facie case appears in favour of the respondent original defendant and hence, considering the said fact, present Special Civil Application deserves no interference of the two orders passed by the learned Courts below and the same is accordingly dismissed.
2.1 It is clarified that the preliminary observations made by this Court should not influence the trial Court while conducting the trial and the trial Court shall proceed with the trial in accordance with law.
[ G. B. Shah, J. ] hiren Page 4 of 4