CRA/805/1988 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 805 of 1988 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= JIVTIBAI RAMJI PRAJAPATI & 6 - Applicant(s) Versus BHATIA VALABAI LAXMIBHAI TRIKAMDAS - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MS KN VALIKARIMWALA for Applicant(s) : 1 - 7. SERVED BY AFFIX.-(R) for Opponent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 10/03/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1.0 This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 06.04.1988 passed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Kutch – Bhuj in CRA/805/1988 2/5 JUDGMENT Regular Civil Appeal No. 137 of 1984 whereby, the said Appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 10.10.1984 passed by the trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 197 of 1982 was confirmed. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are as under; 2.1 The respondent – original plaintiff had filed a suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 197 of 1982 before the Court of learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Anjar inter alia contending that his father-in-law had mortgaged the suit property, bearing Anjar Municipal No. 836/1 and other properties, to one Vera Pama on 23.04.1951 for an amount of Rs.4,000/- and that the mortgagee had let out the suit premises to the husband of petitioner no. 1 and father of petitioner nos. 2 to 7. It was further contented therein that the petitioners had redeemed the suit premises by registered re-conveyance deed and therefore, the respondent was entitled to get the vacant possession of the suit premises from the petitioners. The said suit was decreed in favour of the respondent. CRA/805/1988 3/5 JUDGMENT 2.2 Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners had preferred Appeal being Regular Civil Appeal No. 137 of 1984 before the District Court, Kutch – Bhuj. However, the said Appeal was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 06.04.1988 passed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Kutch – Bhuj. Hence, the present revision. 3.0 Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. The Court below has recorded a finding that in the written statement [Exhibit – 37] filed by the petitioners before the trial Court, they had not narrated about the fact that the suit premises were taken by the petitioners on rent from one Monghibai about 70 – 75 years ago. Moreover, the petitioners had also not produced any receipts / documents on record to show that they were tenants of said Monghibai and that they have been paying rent towards the same regularly. 4.0 Apart from that the document Exhibit – 47 clearly states that the suit premise in question was CRA/805/1988 4/5 JUDGMENT given on mortgage. Thus, both the Courts below were completely justified in decreeing the suit in favour of the respondent. 4.1 The respondent - original plaintiff has proved his case by producing documentary evidence on record whereas, the petitioners – original defendants have not produced any evidence on record, much less any documentary evidence, to show that they were in possession of the suit premise since last 70 – 75 years. The Court below has rightly proceeded on the basis of the documentary evidence produced on record by the respondent. 4.2 Apart from that in view of the concurrent findings by both the Courts below, I am not inclined to entertain this revision. Learned Advocate for the petitioners is not in a position to point out that the Courts below have committed any error of law or of facts while appreciating the evidence produced before it. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the findings arrived at by the Courts below and hence, find no reasons to CRA/805/1988 5/5 JUDGMENT interfere in this application. 5.0 For the foregoing reasons, the revision is dismissed. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. Rule is discharged. However, the petitioners are granted time up to 30.11.2008 to vacate the suit premises on usual undertaking. No order as to costs. [K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*