SA/172/2007 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SECOND APPEAL No. 172 of 2007 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11754 of 2007 In SECOND APPEAL No. 172 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT ========================================================= 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 civil judge ? ========================================================= VAJUBHAI RAMSANGBHAI RAJPUT - Appellant(s) Versus NATHABHAI KABABHAI KACHHADIYA - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR SB TOLIA with MR HARSHIT S TOLIA for Appellant MR SATYAM Y CHHAYA for Defendant ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT 7th September, 2007 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard the learned advocates. SA/172/2007 2/4 JUDGMENT This Appeal under Section 100 CPC has been preferred by the defendant in Regular Civil Suit No. 304 of 2005 against the judgment and order dated 4th August, 2006 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Gondal in Regular Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2007. The respondent-plaintiff instituted the above referred Regular Civil Suit No. 304 of 2005 in the Court of learned Civil Judge [SD], Gondal for removal of encroachment and recovery of possession of the suit house. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff is the owner of House No. 154, situated at village- Charakhdi, Taluka-Gondal. In the year 2002, the defendant was allowed to use part of the suit house for a short time for marriage of his son. However, after marriage, the defendant did not hand over possession, instead, he encroached upon the rest of the suit house and sold away the groundnuts and the fodder stored in the suit house. The suit was contested by the defendant by written statement Exh.9. According to the defendant, the suit was barred by delay and laches; that he was tenant in part of the suit house and before some six or seven SA/172/2007 3/4 JUDGMENT years, he had purchased the suit house for a sum of Rs. 80,000/=. The learned Civil Judge, by judgment and order dated 26th February, 2007, allowed the suit and passed decree for recovery of possession of the suit house in favour of the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant preferred above referred Regular Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2007 in the Fast Track Court at Gondal. The learned Fast Track Judge has confirmed the findings recorded by the learned Civil Judge. By the impugned judgment and order, the Regular Civil Appeal has been dismissed. Therefore the present Appeal. Both the Courts below have recorded concurrent finding against the defendant. Mr. Tolia has admitted that the defendant did not produce any rent note or rent receipts in respect of the alleged tenancy. He has also admitted that no sale deed or agreement for sale had been executed by the plaintiff nor did the defendant prove the transfer of money in consideration of the suit house. Nevertheless, in the submission of Mr. Tolia, the attending circumstances do prove the sale of the suit house to the defendant. SA/172/2007 4/4 JUDGMENT I am unable to agree with Mr. Tolia. The defendant has failed to prove the alleged tenancy and the alleged purchase of the suit house. No question of law much less a substantial question of law arises in this Appeal. The Appeal is dismissed in limine. Civil Application stands disposed of. {Ms. R.M Doshit, J.} Prakash*