SA/47/2008 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SECOND APPEAL No. 47 of 2008 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2768 of 2008 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 ? ========================================================= BACHUBHA DADBHA GOHIL & 3 - Appellant(s) Versus TEMBHA CHHANUBHA GOHIL & 2 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR MP PRAJAPATI for Appellant(s) : 1 - 4. MR P. S. TOLIA for Defendant(s) : 1, None for Defendant(s) : 2 - 3. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 08/07/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT SA/47/2008 2/4 JUDGMENT 1.0 This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Addl. District Judge & Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 6, Bhavnagar in Regular Civil Appeal No. 70 of 2002 dated 24.10.2007 whereby, the said appeal was dismissed. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are as under; 2.1 Respondents no. 1 & 2, original plaintiffs, filed a suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 13 of 1996 before the Court of learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Ghogha praying for a declaration and permanent injunction that the land bearing Survey No. 105/2 paikee, admeasuring 18 acre and 37 gunthas, was of their ownership and to restrain the appellants, original defendants and respondent no. 3 herein from transferring, alienating or creating any right or interest in the said property on the ground that the said property was their ancestral property. 2.2 In the said suit, the appellants, original defendants, filed their reply opposing the suit. The trial Court, after hearing the parties and after considering the evidence on record, decreed the suit in favour of respondents no. 1 & 2. SA/47/2008 3/4 JUDGMENT 2.3 Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the trial Court, the appellants preferred an appeal being Regular Civil Appeal No. 70 of 2002 before the Court of learned Addl. District Judge & Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 6, Bhavnagar. The appellate Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, dismissed the appeal. Hence, this second appeal. 3.0 Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. On the basis of the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, more particularly, the documentary evidence in the form of 'panchnama' prepared by the Court Commissioner, it is evident that the land in question is of the ownership of respondents no. 1 & 2, original appellants. The possession of the appellants on a part of the land in question was nothing but, an encroachment. From the evidence on record, respondents no. 1 & 2 have been able to prove that the land in question was of their ownership and occupation. 4.0 I have gone through the entire evidence on record in detail and keeping in mind the same, I am of the opinion that both the Courts below were completely justified in decreeing the suit in favour of respondents no. 1 & 2. I am in SA/47/2008 4/4 JUDGMENT complete agreement with the concurrent findings arrived at by both the Courts below and hence, find no reasons to interfere in this appeal. 5.0 For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. [K. S. JHAVERI, J.] ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION As the main matter has been disposed of, the civil application shall not survive. It stands disposed of accordingly. [K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*