1. Both the Appeal From Order No.86 of 2011 and Appeal From Order No.87 of 2011 are filed by the appellant- original plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff' for the sake of brevity and convenience) being aggrieved by the common order dated 25-2-2011 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court No.13, Ahmedabad, dismissing Notice of Motion Ex.6 and ad-interim injunction application Ex.7 filed by the plaintiff with cost of Rs.3,000/- and allowing the Notice of Motion Ex.13 and injunction application Ex.14 filed by the respondents -original defendants (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendants' for the sake of brevity and convenience) . Civil Application Nos.2883 of 2011 and 2884 of 2011 are filed for stay of the impugned common order.
2. Short facts are that a suit being Civil Suit No.2778 of 2009 was filed by the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction against the defendants from taking possession of and interfering with the shop bearing Survey No.4336 situated at Khadiya Ward No.1, Near Raipur Gate, Ahmedabad, and also for cancellation of sale deed dated 19-1-2004 executed between the plaintiff and the defendants qua the said shop together with Notice of Motion Ex.6 and application for ad-interim injunction Ex.7. The defendants also filed Notice of Motion Ex.13 and application for restoration of suit premises Ex.14. Upon affording opportunity of hearing to learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, learned Judge, Court No.13, City Civil Court. Ahmedabad, dismissed the Notice of Motion and ad-interim injunction filed by the plaintiff and allowed the Notice of Motion and restoration application filed by the defendants.
3. Heard learned counsel, Mr.Mehul S.Shah with learned counsel, Mr.V.M.Pancholi for the plaintiff and learned counsel Mr.Sunit Shah for Mr.N.V.Gandhi, learned advocate, for the defendants.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel, Mr.Mehul S.Shah that the plaintiff is in actual possession and occupation of the suit property which is clearly mentioned by the Court Commissioner in his report and hence, the impugned order passed by the trial court ordering to hand over the suit property to the defendants requires to be quashed and set aside. It is further submitted that Court Commissioner's report clearly establishes the fact that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property and has never handed over the suit property to the defendants. According to him, the plaintiff had purchased the suit premises on 17-1-2004 from Ramagauri, widow of Hiralal Ishwarlal and others by executing a sale deed for Rs.1,40,000/- and name of the plaintiff was mutated in the city survey record, therefore, there was no necessity for the plaintiff to sell the said property to the defendants on 19-1-2004 i.e. within two days at the same price. It is submitted that the signature of the plaintiff in the alleged sale deed dated 19-1-2004 executed between the plaintiff and the defendants was taken when the plaintiff was under influence of alcohol and, therefore, the said contract of sale was void as no valid consent of plaintiff was taken under Sec.12 of Contract Act. It is further submitted that the trial court has not considered the aspect that when the suit property was purchased by the plaintiff on 17-1-2004, tenant namely, Vishnulal Chunilal Modi, who was in the suit property, had given the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises by agreement dated 20-8-2004. It is further submitted that had the possession of the suit property been given to the defendants on 19-1-2004 by the plaintiff, there was no question of taking vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property from the tenant by the plaintiff on 20-8-2004. According to him, documents in this regard produced before the trial court at Marks 22/A/1, 22/A, 23/A/1, 23/A/2 to 23/A/6 have not been taken into consideration. It is also submitted that the trial court has failed to consider the report of Court Commissioner dated 24-12-2009 stating that there is a board indicating the plaintiff's possession over the suit premises and that goods of plaintiff were lying in the said shop which was being used as a godown. It is further submitted that at the time of drawing panchnama by the Court Commissioner, the defendant No.2, who was present, did not take any objection and after few days, it was alleged that the possession was illegally taken by the plaintiff. It is further submitted that if possession was taken by the plaintiff illegally, the defendants ought to have filed a complaint in this regard but, no complaint was filed. It is also submitted that the trial court has also failed to consider the fact that in the copy of CMA No.13384 of 2009 filed by HDFC Bank against the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.3,37,000/- towards loan, address of the plaintiff was shown to be that of the suit premises. According to him, this independent evidence ought to have been believed by the trial court. However, the trial court, relying upon the documentary evidence produced by the defendants, has wrongly observed that the plaintiff could have got filed the affidavits of witnesses of sale deed executed between the plaintiff and the defendants, if he wanted to prove that he was heavily drunken at the time of execution of sale deed. It is further submitted that the defendants have not paid Rs.1,40,000/- by cheque to the plaintiff while executing the sale deed and hence, the trial court ought not to have relied on few receipts of light bills and municipal taxes having paid by the defendants to come to a conclusion that defendants are in possession of the suit premises. It is further submitted that defendants have not filed any suit against the plaintiff for getting possession of the suit premises or any counter claim but have only submitted an application to restore possession of the suit property. According to him, as per Section 39 of Specific Relief Act, 1963, the defendants must file suit and no mandatory injunction can be granted by the trial court and by granting mandatory injunction, the trial court has committed a manifest error. He has relied on the following reported decisions:
i) AIR 1983 SC 742 in the case of Gangubai Babiya Chaudhary and others Vs. Sitaram Bhalchandra Sukhtankar and others etc.
ii) AIR 1999 SC 1666 in the case of Prataprai N.Kothari Vs. John Braganza;
iii) AIR 2003 SC 1682 in the case of Shankar Popat Gaidhani Vs. Hiraman Umaji More (dead) by L.Rs. and others ;
iv) AIR 2005 SC 1444 in the case of Metro Marins and another Vs. Bonus Watch Co.Pvt. Ltd. and other and
v) AIR 2006 SC 1474 in the case of Kishore Kumar Khaitan & Anr V. Praveen Kumar Singh .
5. It is, however, submitted by learned counsel, Mr.Sunit Shah for Mr.N.V.Gandhi, learned advocate for the defendants, that the suit has been filed by the plaintiff by suppressing the material facts in collusion with defendants' uncle Rajendrabhai Manilal Modi, who filed a Civil Suit No.2777 of 2009, to take away the property adjacent to the suit premises as he wanted to snatch away the running business in the said property. It is further submitted that the plaintiff's suit is barred by law of limitation in view of the fact that the suit has been filed on 24-12-2009 challenging the sale deed dated 19- 1-2004. It is also submitted that the defendants are in possession of the suit property since 2004 by executing the sale deed. It is further submitted that when the Court Commissioner carried out panchnama of the suit property in Civil Suit No.2777 of 2009, the defendant No.1 and his father were in police custody and hence, the commission work was carried out ex-parte in City Survey Nos.4337 and 4338. According to him, Court Commissioner did not visit 1st and 2nd floors of the premises. It is further submitted that as per the report of Court Commissioner, electric connection at the shop was cut off and if that is so, how the alleged photographs dated 20-8-2004 reveal the business of milk and cold drinks being done in the suit premises. According to him, all these photographs were concocted and got up to create false evidence in favour of plaintiff. It is further submitted that key of the suit premises i.e. City Survey No.4336, which was kept in the shop where father of the defendants were running the business, was taken away by the defendants' uncle and the plaintiff and, therefore, when the Court Commissioner came to carry out the work, a show has been made by the plaintiff by opening the door of the shop and by affixing the board showing his name that he is in actual possession of the suit property which is suggestive of the fact that the Court Commissioner's report has been obtained by abusing the process of Court. It is further submitted that the plaintiff had purchased the property from one Ramagauri, widow of Hiralal Ishwarlal and her sons namely, Navinchandra Hiralal, Subodh Hiralal and Mahendra Hiralal, on 17-1-2004 and got executed the sale deed in his favour and thereafter, sold the said property to the defendants by registered sale deed on 19-1-2004 by free consent by handing over actual and vacant physical possession of the property. It is further submitted that ample documentary evidence have been produced by the defendants with list Exs.17-A to 41 showing municipal taxes and electric bills having paid by their father regularly. He has also relied on the decisions of this Court reported in 1993(1) GLR page 206 in the case of Dhirajlal Vithaldas Kavaiya Vs. Rasiklal Chandulal Patel as also in 1992(1) GLR page 261 in the case of M/s Hindustan Engineering & Construction Co., Ahmedabad Vs. Kalindi Co.Op.Housing Society Ltd. And Ors.
6. This Court has gone through the impugned order together with the documentary evidence placed along with the paper book.
7. In the present case, according to the defendants, they are in possession of the suit property in pursuance of execution of sale deed on 19-1-2004 by the plaintiff in their favour. Documents at Marks 4/1 and 17/A/2 clearly show that said sale deed which took place between the defendant No.1 and the plaintiff was registered with the office of Sub-Registrar on the same day. According to the plaintiff, said sale deed was executed when he was in an inebriated condition. On verifying the signature of the plaintiff appearing on the sale deed, it does not indicate that said sale deed was executed in an inebriated condition. There is nothing on record to substantiate the said say of the plaintiff either by way of affidavit of witnesses to the said sale deed or by way of filing any criminal complaint by the plaintiff in this regard or by denying the receipt of sale consideration amount. Hence, the submission of the learned advocate for the plaintiff that he was in an inebriated condition when the sale deed was executed and hence contract of sale was void as no valid consent of plaintiff was taken under Sec.12 of Contract Act cannot be accepted and is hereby negatived.
8. To show the possession over the suit property, the plaintiff has heavily relied upon the report of Court Commissioner. On going through the report of Court Commissioner, it appears that the report has been prepared in an unusual manner. The Court Commissioner issued notice to the defendants to remain present at 9.30 p.m. for carrying out the commission work and started the work at 9.45 p.m. It has come on record that at that time, the defendant No.1 and his father were lodged in jail in a false case and endorsement to that effect was made by mother of defendant No.1-Manisha Kaushikkumar Modi. It is worth noting that when commission work was being carried out, uncle of the defendants-Ramesh Dudhiya was present on behalf of the plaintiff. It is important to note that there was no electric light at the place when commission work was carried out by the Court Commissioner. Nothing has come from the Court Commissioner's report indicating that he used any artificial light like torch, battery or other equipments for light for carrying out the commission work. The work of Court Commissioner completed at 10.30 p.m. It is thus a matter of great surprise that when there was no light, how can the Court Commissioner take notice of the dispute property in darkness. Considering these peculiar facts, a question that arises in the mind of this court is as to what necessitated the Court Commissioner to carry out the commission work giving short notice to the defendants at odd hours at night in absence of electric light and in absence of defendant No.1 and his father at the disputed premises. This speaks volume about the conduct of Court Commissioner and, therefore, relying upon the said Court Commissioner's report, plaintiff's claim possession over the disputed property cannot be believed.
9. As far as photographs produced on record by the plaintiff are concerned, it is clear from the affidavit of Shri Pareshbhai Vasudevbhai Prajapati, owner of Paresh Studio, who took those photographs, that those photographs of offering sweets at the suit premises were taken on 29-9-2004. However, it was stated by the plaintiff that those photographs were arranged to be taken on 20-8-2004 when possession of the suit shop was taken from the tenant. It could not be explained by the plaintiff that although possession of the suit shop was taken from the tenant on 20-8-2004, what necessitated him to arrange for a photo function of offering sweets on 29-9-2004 as stated by the photographer. It, therefore, appears that those photographs were arranged to be taken by the plaintiff to create false evidence in his favour over possession of the suit property.
10. On the part of the defendants, documents were produced at Marks 17/A/3 to 17/A/20, 17/A/39 to 39/58 to show that electricity bills pertaining to the suit premises were paid by them. They have also produced documents at Marks 17/A/29, 17/A/33 and 23/A/38 to show that they were paying municipal taxes through cheques in respect of the suit premises after the sale deed was executed in their favour. All these documents produced by the defendants clearly indicate that electricity bills and municipal tax bills were being paid by the defendants and not by the plaintiff. Had the plaintiff been in possession of the suit premises, there was no question of the defendants' father receiving the electricity and tax bills and paying the same.
11. It is on record that a suit was filed by the uncle of the defendants-Ramesh Dudhiya being Civil Suit No.2777 of 2009 against parents of defendants qua shops bearing Survey Nos.4337 and 4338 in which order was passed on 5-1-2010 to break open the locks of properties within two days. Ultimately, the defendants have been restored with the possession of the suit premises. As observed earlier, when Court Commissioner came to carry out the commission work, uncle of the defendants remained present on behalf of the plaintiff. This is indicative of the fact that there was collusion between the plaintiff and uncle of the defendants. In view of the above, it is clearly established and has been rightly held by the trial court that the plaintiff was not in lawful possession of the suit premises.
12. As far as the artifact of the property is concerned, there are three floors namely, ground, first and second floors. However, the commission work appears to have been carried out only of the ground floor as the report of Court Commissioner is silent about 1st and 2nd floors. As far as 1st and 2nd floors are concerned, they are in possession of the defendants and, therefore, question arises as to how could the plaintiff be in possession of the ground floor. The trial court, discussing each and every aspect minutely, has rightly come to the conclusion that the defendants were in possession of the suit premises and, therefore, considering this case as the rarest of rare has granted mandatory injunction in their favour.
13. As far as the contention of non-filing of suit or counter- claim by the defendants is concerned, it is to be noted that the defendants were in possession of the suit premises before filing of the suit by the plaintiff. However, after filing of suit, the plaintiff took possession of the suit premises by dispossessing the defendants and hence, under Order VIII Rule 6A of CPC, the defendants have right to seek restoration of the possession of the suit premises and mandatory relief and consequently the Court has all powers to grant mandatory injunction on finding it to be a case fit to exercise discretion. In such circumstances, no suit or counter-claim needs to be filed by the defendants. In view of the above, there is no substance in the submission of learned advocate, Mr.Mehul Shah that defendants have not filed any suit in light of Sec.39 of Specific Relief Act.
14. As far as the reliance placed by learned counsel, Mr.Mehul Shah on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gangubai Babiya Chaudhary (supra) is concerned, the plaintiff and defendant of the said reported case were found to be in possession of about half portion of disputed land. However, in the case on hand, the plaintiff was never in possession of the disputed suit property after the registered sale deed dated 19-1-2004 was executed in favour of the defendants by him. However, the plaintiff was put in possession based on the report of the Court Commissioner by dispossessing the defendants and hence, the said decision would not be of any help to the plaintiff.
15. The entire case in Prataprai N.Kothari(supra) as relied on by learned counsel, Mr.Mehul Shah, rests on the exclusive possession of the plaintiff for several decades and not on any claim of title. In the said reported case, defendant also did not raise any title to suit property but was permitted to lead additional evidence about title in the appeal. It was held therein by Hon'ble Supreme Court that when there was no plea or issue on the question of title, permitting additional evidence in appeal was beyond jurisdiction. In the present case, the defendants were having the legal title of the suit premises by paying municipal taxes and electricity bills after the registered sale deed was executed in their favour, however, they were dispossessed based on the report of Court Commissioner and plaintiff was put in possession. Facts of the reported decision are different from the facts on hand and hence, no benefit of the said decision can be given to the plaintiff.
16. The facts in Shankar Popat Gaidhani(supra) as relied on by the learned counsel for the plaintiff are that in a suit filed for specific performance of contract of sale of land, decree was passed without directing possession to purchaser. The purchaser did not file appeal. Appeal filed by vendor was dismissed by the High Court by clarifying that order passed by the trial court directing the defendant No.1 to execute sale deed of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff on payment in accordance with the agreement shall be construed as directing delivery of possession of the suit land. Said clarification by the High Court was quashed and set aside by Hon'ble Apex Court. As stated above, in the present case, registered sale deed was already executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendants and they were put in possession. As facts of the said reported decision are different from the facts on hand, no benefit of the said decision can be given to the plaintiff.
17. Facts of other decisions relied on by learned counsel, Mr.Shah on the cases reported in AIR 2003 SC page 1682 and AIR 2005 SC page 1444 are different from the facts of the present case and hence, no benefits of those decisions can be given to the plaintiff.
18. It is now a well settled principle of law that if the findings arrived at by the trial court are just, legal, proper and no apparent error or jurisdictional error is committed by the trial court, this Court has no power to interfere with the same. However, if the findings are unjust, illegal or improper or apparent error or jurisdictional error as having committed by the trial court is noticed, then only, this Court has power to interfere with the same.
19. From the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has failed to establish his prima facie case that he was in possession of the suit premises and hence, mandatory injunction has rightly been granted by the trial court in favour of the defendants. Said order is just, legal and proper and no apparent error or jurisdictional error has been committed by the trial court warranting interference by this Court in these appeals.
20. In view of the above, both the Appeal From Order Nos.86 and 87 of 2011 are dismissed. The plaintiff is hereby directed to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the defendants within thirty days from today.
21. As appeals are dismissed, Civil Application Nos.2883 and 2884 of 2011 do not survive and are disposed of.
22. Office to place a copy of this common judgment in each matter.
[M.D.SHAH,J.] radhan