1. The present second appeal u/s.100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the appellants herein -
original defendants to quash and set aside the impugned judgement and decree dated 03/02/2007 passed by learned 8th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Palanpur in Regular Civil Suit No.155 of 2001 as well as the impugned judgement and order dated 16/04/2012 passed by learned Appellate Court i.e. learned 4th Additional District Judge, Banaskanth, Palanpur in Regular Civil Appeal No.5 of 2007, by which, learned Appellate Court has dismissed the said appeal confirming the judgement and decree passed by learned Trial Court decreeing the suit and granting permanent injunction in favour of the original plaintiffs as prayed for.
2. That the respondents herein - original plaintiffs instituted Regular Civil Suit No.155 of 2001 in the Court of learned 8th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Palanpur for permanent injunction restraining the appellants herein - original defendants from disturbing the possession of the suit property i.e. 4 Acres of the land out of 9 Acres and 36 Gunthas of the land bearing Survey No.362/1 on the eastern side of the said land. That on appreciation of evidence and considering the fact that original plaintiffs have become owner on the basis of the registered sale deed, which was executed in favour of original plaintiffs, learned Trial Court decreed the suit and granted permanent injunction as prayed for.
3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court decreeing the suit, the appellants herein – original defendants preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.5 of 2007 before learned District Court, Banaskantha at Palanpur and learned Appellate Court i.e. learned 4th Additional District Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur by impugned judgement and order dated 16/04/2012 has dismissed the said appeal confirming the judgement and decree passed by learned Trial Court.
4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgement and orders passed by both the Courts below, the appellants herein – original defendants have preferred the present second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
5. Mr.B.N.Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants herein – original defendants has vehemently submitted that as such the appellants herein are in possession of the 9 Acres and 36 Gunthas of the land being Survey No.362/01 known as Vadoliyavali and, therefore, there is dispute with respect to for which portion of the land, learned Trial Court has passed the decree of permanent injunction. Therefore, it is requested to consider the same.
6. Having heard Mr.B.N.Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants herein – original defendants and considering the impugned judgement and orders passed by both the Courts below, the aforesaid has no substance. It is required to be noted that learned Trial Court has passed decree of permanent injunction with respect to suit property and with respect to the land purchased by original defendants by executing registered sale deed in the year 1971 and description of which has been given in the sale deed i.e. 4 Acres of the land out of 9 Acres and 36 Gunthas of the land bearing Survey No.362/1 on the eastern side of the said land. Under the circumstances, permanent injunction is granted on the 4 Acres of the land bearing survey No.362/1, which is on the eastern side and description of which was mentioned in the plaint as well as in the registered sale deed. Under the circumstances, there is no substance in the present second appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
7. In view of the dismissal of the main second appeal, no order in Civil Application No.7732 of 2012 and Civil Application is also accordingly dismissed. No costs.
[M.R.SHAH,J] *dipti