Gujarat High Court
Rameshbhai Bhikhabhai Patel vs Manharbhai Natwarlal Patel on 25 September, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2755/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2755 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed YES
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? YES
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy NO
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question NO
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
================================================================
RAMESHBHAI BHIKHABHAI PATEL
Versus
MANHARBHAI NATWARLAL PATEL & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MS LAKSHA K BHAVNANI(11339) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR VIMAL A PUROHIT(5049) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
SHRENIK R JASANI(9486) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 25/09/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present First Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is preferred by the appellant - original plaintiff, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 26.02.2024 passed by the learned City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, in Civil Suit No.810 of 2014.
Page 1 of 17 Uploaded by SLOCK BAROT(HC01781) on Thu Oct 03 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 05 22:41:41 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2755/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2024 undefined
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:
2.1 For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per their original status i.e. the Plaintiff and the Defendants. 2.2 The description of the suit property is as follows: T.P Scheme No.3, Municipal Ward No. 515, Final Plot No. 285, City Survey No. 2862 (Old Survey No. 325) having Tenement No. (i) 05150100100019, (ii) 0515010010002U, (iii) 05150100100035, (iv) 0515010010004Q, (v) 05150100100050,
(vi) 0515010010006M, (vii) 0515010010007K, (viii) 05150100100081, (xi) 0515010010009G and (x) 05150100100010V situated at Sim: Khanpur, Moje: Shekhpur and District: Ahmedabad. The above-mentioned property was self-acquired property of the Plaintiff's ancestor namely Hargovandas Laldas. Furthermore, the person namely Hargovandas Laldas was married twice; the first marriage was with Ambaben and the second marriage was with Ichaben. That, from the wedlock with first wife namely Ambaben, one son namely Bechardas was born. Furthermore, the person namely Bhikhabhai was the son of Bechardas. It is pertinent to mention here that the present Plaintiff is the legal heir of the person namely Bhikhabhai. That, from the wedlock with the second wife namely Ichaben, one son namely Jivabhai was born. Furthermore, the person namely Page 2 of 17 Uploaded by SLOCK BAROT(HC01781) on Thu Oct 03 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 05 22:41:41 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2755/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2024 undefined Natvarlal was the son of Jivabhai. It is pertinent to mention here that the present Defendant No.1 is the son of the person namely Natvarlal and the Defendant No.2-4 are the legal heirs of the other son of the person namely Natvarlal.
That, the suit property was purchased by the Plaintiff's ancestor namely Hargovandas Laldas on the name of the second wife namely Ichaben. Furthermore, the suit property was purchased from the funds of the family and therefore all the legal heirs of Hargovandas Laldas have equal right and interest in the suit property.
2.3 After the death of the second wife of the Plaintiff's ancestor namely Hargovandas Laldas; only the names of the legal heirs of second wife namely Ichaben were mutated in the revenue records of the suit property. The Defendants have constructed shops in the suit property; wherein in one shop the Defendant No.1 is doing business and the other shops have been rented by the Defendants. Furthermore, when the Plaintiff demanded the share in the profit; the Defendants threatened to sell the suit property to the third party.
2.4 The Plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 25.12.2013 to the Defendants asking for the right, title and interest in the suit property. Furthermore, the Defendants sent the reply dated 18.12.2014 denying the same. Therefore, on 07.04.2014 the Page 3 of 17 Uploaded by SLOCK BAROT(HC01781) on Thu Oct 03 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 05 22:41:41 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2755/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2024 undefined Plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 810 of 2014 before the Learned City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad seeking permanent injunction and restraining the Defendants, their agents, servants, representatives, etc. from transferring, assigning, alienating and / or dealing in any manner whatsoever with the suit property. Thereafter, the Defendants contested the said suit by filing Written Statement denying the aforesaid facts. Both the parties have led oral as well as documentary evidence to prove and disprove their respective case. 2.5 Thereafter, vide Judgment and Order dated 26.02.2024, the learned Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad was pleased to reject the Civil Suit No.810 of 2014 filed by the Plaintiff.
2.6 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order, the present appeal is preferred before this Court.
3. Heard learned advocate Ms. Laksha K. Bhavnani for the appellant, learned advocates Mr. Vimal A. Purohit and Mr. Shrenik R. Jasani for the respondent No.3 - Caveator.
4. Learned advocate Ms. Laksha Bhavnani has submitted that the learned Civil Court has not considered appropriately the factual aspect of the matter that the suit property is self-acquired property of the ancestors of the plaintiff, namely, Page 4 of 17 Uploaded by SLOCK BAROT(HC01781) on Thu Oct 03 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 05 22:41:41 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2755/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2024 undefined Hargovandas Laldas, which is taken in the name of second wife namely Ichaben out of love and affection, and the plaintiff and the other members are being joint family members are having equal share, right and interest of the self-acquired joint family property. She has further submitted that the suit property was thrown into common hotch-potch for the use and benefit of the family members, in entirety and without any exception and thus, the suit property irrespective of the ownership, are admittedly thrown into hotch-potch.
4.1 She has further submitted that no dispute was raised while entering the names of the parties in revenue record by way of mutation entry and this fact itself does not adversely affect the right of the plaintiff to challenge the said mutation entry at subsequent stage, if the title of the land is claimed on the basis of such mutation entry, the concerned Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the question as to the title, irrespective of such mutation entry. She has submitted that the concerned trial Court has erred in giving findings as well as the detailed reasons assigned by the trial Court while deciding the suit proceedings and therefore, the trial Court has wrongly come to the conclusion that, as the suit is filed after period of more than 13 years, therefore, there is a bar of limitation and there is bar of estoppel also, as well as, Page 5 of 17 Uploaded by SLOCK BAROT(HC01781) on Thu Oct 03 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 05 22:41:41 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2755/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2024 undefined the trial Court has also considered that there is bar of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, as the plaintiff has not prayed in the suit about any declaration with regard to the right in the property or in partition and the suit is filed for permanent injunction which is not maintainable and therefore, the concerned Court has wrongly found that such suit is not maintainable. She has submitted that, on the contrary, from the material available on the record, the trial Court ought to have allowed the suit filed by the appellant - plaintiff, and therefore, she prays to allow the present appeal.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Vimal A. Purohit for the respondent No.3 has submitted that the trial Court has not committed any error as apparently, from the record, the suit is barred by limitation, moreover, the suit itself is not maintainable as the suit is filed only with prayer of permanent injunction as well as no declaration, whatsoever, is sought and therefore, in view of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the suit is required to be dismissed. He has further submitted that, apart from that also, considering the provisions of Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, there is a bar of estoppel to the suit filed by the present appellant - plaintiff, moreover, the appellant has not challenged any proceedings, whereby, the names of the present defendants were entered into the revenue record by Page 6 of 17 Uploaded by SLOCK BAROT(HC01781) on Thu Oct 03 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 05 22:41:41 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2755/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2024 undefined way of revenue proceedings or by seeking any relief qua such proceedings and therefore, the suit filed by the present appellant - original plaintiff before the trial Court is misconceived and the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the suit.
5.1 Learned advocate, in support of his submissions, has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of The Tehsildar, Urban Improvement Trust and Anr. Vs. Ganga Bai Menariya (Dead) Through Lrs. and Others , rendered in Civil Appeal No.722 of 2012, more particularly, paras 21 and 21.1 and therefore, he has submitted that the trial Court has not committed any error and appropriate order may be passed by this Court.
6. I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar, I have also gone through the judgment and order passed by the trial Court as well as the material available on the record before this Court.
6.1 It transpires that the suit is filed seeking relief of permanent injunction without seeking any other relief in the suit proceedings, thereafter, the defendants appeared and filed the written statement. Thereafter, the trial Court has framed six issues for determination of the suit.
6.2 It also transpires that thereafter on the basis of issues, the evidence was led by the parties, in addition to the Page 7 of 17 Uploaded by SLOCK BAROT(HC01781) on Thu Oct 03 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 05 22:41:41 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2755/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2024 undefined documentary evidence produced by the parties. Thereafter, the trial Court has decided the matter after considering the submissions of the respective parties. It further transpires from the impugned judgment and order that the trial Court has dealt with all the issues in detail which are framed for consideration, after properly appreciating the evidence available on the record. While deciding the issue No.1, the trial Court has found that in the cross-examination of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has admitted that Hargovandas Laldas had transferred such property by Will to Ichaben and by the time, many mutation entries had taken place but no objection has been raised ever. It also transpires from the reasoning of the trial Court for the issue No.1, that the plaintiff has admitted in cross-examination that the plaintiff is not the heirs of Ichaben and it is further admitted that, while the construction was carried out, no objection had been raised by the plaintiff.
6.3 It also transpires that shops were constructed there on the suit land and as per the case of the plaintiff, there is issue of rent calculation also which is decided by the trial Court by considering the issue No.3. While considering the issue No.4, the trial Court has considered the aspect of criminal intimidation to the plaintiff by the defendants. The Trial Court has observed that no criminal proceedings are filed and no evidence is produced on record to show that the Page 8 of 17 Uploaded by SLOCK BAROT(HC01781) on Thu Oct 03 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 05 22:41:41 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2755/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2024 undefined defendants intimidated the plaintiff. The trial Court while considering the issue No.6 has found that the plaintiff has not prayed for declaration or partition and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to get the relief under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which reads as under:
"34. Discretion of court as to declaration of status or right.-- Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief:
Provided that no court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so.
Explanation.--
A trustee of property is a "person interested to deny" a title adverse to the title of some one who is not in existence, and whom, if in existence, he would be a trustee."
6.4 I have perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court as well as necessary material produced on record before the trial Court. I have also perused the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of The Tehsildar, Urban Improvement Trust and Anr. Vs. Ganga Bai Menariya (Dead) Through Lrs. and Others , rendered in Civil Appeal No.722 of 2012, cited at the bar by the learned advocate for the defendant, more particularly, Page 9 of 17 Uploaded by SLOCK BAROT(HC01781) on Thu Oct 03 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 05 22:41:41 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2755/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2024 undefined paras 21 and 21.1, which read as under:
"21. In the light of the aforesaid stand and the evidence led on record by the appellants-defendants, it was incumbent on the respondents to have proved their title on the land, which they failed to establish. As per the stand of the appellants, the respondents were encroachers upon the land for which notice under Section 92A of the 1959 Act was issued to them. The same was replied to by the respondents stating therein that they have patta executed in their favour by the Gram Panchayat. 21.1 Further a suit simpliciter for injunction may not be maintainable as the title of the property of the plaintiff/respondent was disputed by the appellants/defendants. In such a situation it was required for the respondent/plaintiff to prove the title of the property while praying for injunction. Reference can be made to the judgment of this Court in Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by Lrs. and ors."
6.5 This Court has also considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T.V.Tamakrishna Reddy Vs. M. Mallappa and Another , reported in (2021) 13 SCC 135, wherein, the relevant paras 14 to 26, are reproduced as under:
"14. The issue is no more res integra. The position has been crystallised by this Court in Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy [Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy, (2008) 4 SCC 594] in para 21, which read thus : (SCC pp. 607-608) "21. To summarise, the position in regard to suits for prohibitory injunction relating to immovable property, is as under:
Page 10 of 17 Uploaded by SLOCK BAROT(HC01781) on Thu Oct 03 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 05 22:41:41 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2755/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2024 undefined
(a) Where a cloud is raised over the plaintiff's title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction, is the remedy. Where the plaintiff's title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of possession, he has to sue for possession with a consequential injunction. Where there is merely an interference with the plaintiff's lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an injunction simpliciter.
(b) As a suit for injunction simpliciter is concerned only with possession, normally the issue of title will not be directly and substantially in issue. The prayer for injunction will be decided with reference to the finding on possession. But in cases where de jure possession has to be established on the basis of title to the property, as in the case of vacant sites, the issue of title may directly and substantially arise for consideration, as without a finding thereon, it will not be possible to decide the issue of possession.
(c) But a finding on title cannot be recorded in a suit for injunction, unless there are necessary pleadings and appropriate issue regarding title (either specific, or implied as noticed in Annaimuthu Thevar [Annaimuthu Thevar v.
Alagammal, (2005) 6 SCC 202] ). Where the averments regarding title are absent in a plaint and where there is no issue relating to title, the court will not investigate or examine or render a finding on a question of title, in a suit for injunction. Even where there are necessary pleadings and issue, if the matter involves complicated questions of fact and Page 11 of 17 Uploaded by SLOCK BAROT(HC01781) on Thu Oct 03 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 05 22:41:41 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2755/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2024 undefined law relating to title, the court will relegate the parties to the remedy by way of comprehensive suit for declaration of title, instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction.
(d) Where there are necessary pleadings regarding title, and appropriate issue relating to title on which parties lead evidence, if the matter involved is simple and straightforward, the court may decide upon the issue regarding title, even in a suit for injunction. But such cases, are the exception to the normal rule that question of title will not be decided in suits for injunction. But persons having clear title and possession suing for injunction, should not be driven to the costlier and more cumbersome remedy of a suit for declaration, merely because some meddler vexatiously or wrongfully makes a claim or tries to encroach upon his property. The court should use its discretion carefully to identify cases where it will enquire into title and cases where it will refer to the plaintiff to a more comprehensive declaratory suit, depending upon the facts of the case."
15. It could thus be seen that this Court in unequivocal terms has held that where the plaintiff's title is not in dispute or under a cloud, a suit for injunction could be decided with reference to the finding on possession. It has been clearly held that if the matter involves complicated questions of fact and law relating to title, the court will relegate the parties to the remedy by way of comprehensive suit for declaration of title, instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction.
16. No doubt, this Court has held that where there are necessary Page 12 of 17 Uploaded by SLOCK BAROT(HC01781) on Thu Oct 03 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 05 22:41:41 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2755/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2024 undefined pleadings regarding title and appropriate issue relating to title on which parties lead evidence, if the matter involved is simple and straightforward, the court may decide upon the issue regarding title, even in a suit for injunction. However, it has been held that such cases are the exception to the normal rule that question of title will not be decided in suits for injunction.
17. In this background, we will have to consider the facts of the present case.
18. The appellant-plaintiff claims to be the owner of the suit property on the basis of a sale deed executed by one K.P. Govinda Reddy in his favour on 13-4-1992. In turn, according to him, the said property was sold by one Smt Varalakshmamma in favour of his vendor K.P. Govinda Reddy on 26-3-1971. He claims that he had mortgaged the suit property for taking loan from one financial institution. He further claimed that an endorsement was also issued by the Corporation of City of Bangalore that khata regarding the suit property is transferred to the appellant. According to the appellant-plaintiff, when the Bangalore Mahanagar Palike withdrew the khata in his favour, he went to the High Court [T.V. Ramakrishna Reddy v. Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, 2000 SCC OnLine Kar 901] and succeeded therein.
19. Per contra, Defendant 2 (Respondent 1 herein) is specifically denying the title of the appellant-plaintiff. He claims to be the owner of the suit property on the basis of a sale deed dated 5-4-1984 from one M. Shivalingaiah. He also claims to be in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same on the basis of the said sale deed. It is his case that K.P. Govinda Reddy got the title set up falsely and created fabricated documents with regard to possession. It is also his case that compound wall was constructed by him and not by the plaintiff, as claimed.
Page 13 of 17 Uploaded by SLOCK BAROT(HC01781) on Thu Oct 03 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 05 22:41:41 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2755/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2024 undefined
20. It could thus clearly be seen that this is not a case where the appellant-plaintiff can be said to have a clear title over the suit property or that there is no cloud on the appellant-plaintiff's title over the suit property. The question involved is one which requires adjudication after the evidence is led and questions of fact and law are decided.
21. In that view of the matter, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and order [M. Mallappa v. T.V. Ramakrishna Reddy, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3063] passed by the Karnataka High Court.
22. Insofar as the reliance on the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court dated 10-2-2000 (sic 18-2-2000) in T.V. Ramakrishna Reddy v. Bangalore Mahanagara Palike [T.V. Ramakrishna Reddy v. Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, 2000 SCC OnLine Kar 901] is concerned, it will be relevant to refer to the following observations made therein : (SCC OnLine Kar paras 3-4) "3. It is evident from the plain reading of the above that any entry made in the Corporation Register by fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of facts or by furnishing false, incorrect and incomplete material could be corrected within a period of three years from the date of such recording. The order in the instant case was passed admittedly much beyond the period of limitation prescribed by the provision extracted above. The same is therefore unsustainable on that ground itself. The parties being in litigation before the civil court could upon adjudication of the controversy regarding the title to the property approach the Corporation for any modification in the entry which is no more any modification in the entry which is no more than a fiscal entry relevant only for purposes of payment of taxes and does not by itself create or extinguish title to the property in regard to which it is made. Till such time the Page 14 of 17 Uploaded by SLOCK BAROT(HC01781) on Thu Oct 03 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 05 22:41:41 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2755/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2024 undefined competent court declared the 3rd respondent as the true owner of the property, the Corporation could not on its own correct the entry after a period of 3 years stipulated under Section 114-A of the Act.
4. This writ petition accordingly succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order shall stand quashed reserving liberty for the parties to have the matter adjudicated upon by the civil court and to approach the Corporation for a fresh entry/modification of the existing entry to bring the same in consonance with the civil court's determination. No costs."
23. It could thus be clearly seen that the High Court in the said order has clearly noted that the parties are in litigation before the civil court and that adjudication of controversy regarding the title of the suit property could be done only by the civil court. The entry with the Corporation is nothing more than a fiscal entry relevant only for the purpose of payment of taxes and does not by itself create or extinguish title to the property. The Court observed that till such time the competent court declared the third respondent therein as the true owner of the property, the Corporation could not on its own correct the entry after a period of 3 years stipulated under Section 114-A of the Act. The High Court has therefore set aside the order reserving liberty for the parties to have the matter adjudicated upon by the civil court.
24. In that view of the matter, the said judgment and order would be of no assistance to the case of the appellant-plaintiff.
25. It will also be relevant to refer to the following observations of this Court in Jharkhand State Housing Board v. Didar Singh [Jharkhand State Housing Board v. Didar Singh, (2019) 17 SCC 692 : (2020) 3 SCC (Civ) 588] : (SCC p. 694, para 11) "11. It is well settled by catena of judgments of this Court that in each Page 15 of 17 Uploaded by SLOCK BAROT(HC01781) on Thu Oct 03 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 05 22:41:41 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2755/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2024 undefined and every case where the defendant disputes the title of the plaintiff it is not necessary that in all those cases the plaintiff has to seek the relief of declaration. A suit for mere injunction does not lie only when the defendant raises a genuine dispute with regard to title and when he raises a cloud over the title of the plaintiff, then necessarily in those circumstances, the plaintiff cannot maintain a suit for bare injunction."
26. In the facts of the present case, it cannot be said at this stage that the dispute raised by Defendant 2 with regard to title is not genuine nor can it be said that the title of the appellant-plaintiff over the suit property is free from cloud. The issue with regard to title can be decided only after the full-fledged trial on the basis of the evidence that would be led by the parties in support of their rival claims."
7. Therefore, considering the above position of law, additionally, from a bare reading of the plaint, it transpires that the plaintiff has sought to challenge the action almost after delay of 13 years and for some aspect there is more delay. It also transpires that the plaintiff has never challenged any entry made in the revenue record by way of appropriate revenue proceedings or by way of a separate suit challenging such transfer. It further transpires that the present suit is barred by provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, as the plaintiff has not sought any relief of declaration or partition and has merely sought relief of permanent injunction. The pleadings of the parties are to be considered by keeping in mind the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as well as relevant provisions of the Page 16 of 17 Uploaded by SLOCK BAROT(HC01781) on Thu Oct 03 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 05 22:41:41 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2755/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2024 undefined the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Therefore, the suit itself is barred by provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and also apparently, the suit is barred by provisions of Limitation Act, more particularly, Section 3 of the Limitation Act.
8. After re-appreciating the material available on record and after re-analyzing the impugned judgment and order, this Court is of the opinion that the concerned trial Court has not committed any error in coming to the conclusion that the suit filed by the plaintiff is required to be dismissed. Moreover, the trial Court has given cogent and convincing reasons by discussing the necessary evidence available on the record as well as by considering the necessary legal provisions applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
9. For the foregoing reasons, I found no justifiable reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the trial Court. Therefore, the present appeal lacks merit and the same is required to be dismissed.
10. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) SLOCK BAROT Page 17 of 17 Uploaded by SLOCK BAROT(HC01781) on Thu Oct 03 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 05 22:41:41 IST 2024