KANUBHAI ALIAS KANAIYALAL MANEKLAL SHETH v. BHARATBHAI MOTIBHAI RAJPUT
FA/4307/2024 · 2026-07-17
J C Doshi
body2024
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2024 DAILYLAW 2357 (GUJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2024 DAILYLAW 2357 (GUJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
C/FA/4307/2024 ORDER DATED: 17/07/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4307 of 2024 ========================================================== KANUBHAI ALIAS KANAIYALAL MANEKLAL SHETH Versus BHARATBHAI MOTIBHAI RAJPUT & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: MR ROBIN PRASAD(9344) for MR ND GOHIL for the Appellant NOTICE SERVED for the Respondents ==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 17/07/2026
ORDER
1. Present First Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.7.2024 passed by the learned City Civil Court at Ahmedabad below Exh.53 in Civil Suit (CCC) No.951 of 2014.
2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, parties are referred to as per their original status before the learned trial Court.
3.
Brief facts of the case are as under:- 3.1 The father of the appellant had purchased the suit property consisting one room and orsi (open space) situated on the ground floor at back side of House No.214 in Shahibaug Cantonment area at Mauje Camp Sadar Bazar, Tal: Cuty, Dist: Ahmedabad on 26.6.1935. He applied for Transfer
C/FA/4307/2024 ORDER DATED: 17/07/2026 of Property (Mutation) on 5.7.1977 by application to the Chief Executive Officer and died on 26.12.1977. The application for Transfer of Property (Mutation) was considered and approved by Ahmedabad Cantonment Board vide C.B.R. No. (1)(b)(3) on
26.7.1979. The name of father of the appellant-Maneklal S/o Bhagwadas was deleted and name of Kanubhai S/o Maneklal Sheth, the appellant was entered in the GLR. 3.2 The appellant - original plaintiff instituted Civil Suit No. (CCC) No. 951/2014 in the Court of Ld. City Civil Court at Ahmedabad on or about 23.4.2014 and inter-alia prayed for decree of recovery and possession against the respondent defendant nos. 1 and 2 in respect of suit property. 3.3 The Ld. City Civil Court was pleased to order below notice of motion on 23.4.2014. The defendants having been served with the notice of motion filed reply below Ex: 15. 3.4 The Ld. City Civil Court vide impugned judgment dated 22.07.2024 has been pleased dismiss the suit. 3.5 Hence, present First Appeal. 4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Robin Prasad for the plaintiff. Though served, none appears for the defendants. 5. Learned advocate for the plaintiff, referring to written statement at Exh.15 filed by the defendants, would submit that in written statement, at nowhere, the defendants raised contention that the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit
C/FA/4307/2024 ORDER DATED: 17/07/2026 property, but rather accepted that the plaintiff on the basis of ancestral property, owes ancestral right and yet, the learned trial Court has fixed issue No.1 to direct the plaintiff to prove his ownership. He would further submit that it is a simple case where the plaintiff himself executed leave and license agreement of 11 months on 1.2.2013 in favour of the defendants and permitted the defendants to continue the possession of the suit property. Learned advocate Mr.
Prasad took this Court through the unexhibited document (page 117 of the compilation) and submitted that the suit property has been transferred in name of the plaintiff in the Mutation Register on 30.1.2018. However, inadvertently, it was not placed before the learned trial Court by the plaintiff. He would further submit that in the notice and reply exchanged between the parties, the defendants did not raise any contention that the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit property. He would further submit that the plaintiff has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination at Exh.37 and asserted and reiterated the contention that the defendants did not cross-examine the plaintiff and rebutted the contention stated in the chief examination and yet, the learned trial Court has dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to succeed in proving his case of ownership. 6. Upon above submissions, learned advocate Mr. Robin Prasad prays to allow this First Appeal and to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order. Alternatively, he prays to remand the matter to the learned trial Court and the plaintiff be given one for chance to defend his case. Page 3 of 5
C/FA/4307/2024 ORDER DATED: 17/07/2026
7. Having heard learned advocate for the plaintiff as well as on perusal of the records and proceedings of the case, what appears that the learned trial Court took hyper-technical approach and in hurry of disposal of the suit, though, the defendants were not at dispute, as they have not cross- examined the plaintiff not have entered into the witness box, dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to prove his case. This Court does not subscribe such kind of approach of the learned trial Court. 8. Without dealing further on merits of the case, this Court finds that this is a fit case to remand the matter before the learned trial Court for fresh consideration. Hence, I pass following order. 8.1 The First Appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and
order dated 22.7.2024 passed by the learned City Civil Court at Ahmedabad below Exh.53 in Civil Suit (CCC) No.951 of 2014 is hereby quashed and set aside by remanding the matter to the learned trial Court for fresh consideration. 8.2 Civil Suit (CCC) No.951 of 2014 is restored to its original proceedings. 8.3 Both the parties are permitted to lead their evidence, if so advised and desired. 8.4 The learned trial Court is directed to decide the suit afresh and in accordance with the evidence led before it and as early as possible, preferably within nine months from the date of receipt
C/FA/4307/2024 ORDER DATED: 17/07/2026 of copy of this order. 8.5 It is expected that both the parties shall cooperate the learned trial Court for expeditious disposal of the suit.
9. Registry is directed to return back the R & P, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) SHEKHAR P. BARVE Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: SHEKHAR PRAFULBHAI BARVE(HC00200), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 17/07/2026 14:30:42