Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Patel Amrutbhai Ranchhoddas-Decd. & ... vs Maneging Trustees Of Dahiben ... on 19 February, 2014

Author: Paresh Upadhyay

Bench: Paresh Upadhyay

          C/SA/13/2014                                  ORDER




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                     SECOND APPEAL NO. 13 of 2014
                               With
                         SECOND APPEAL NO. 14 of 2014

================================================================


                     SECOND APPEAL NO. 13 of 2014

PATEL AMRUTBHAI RANCHHODDAS-DECD. & Ors          ...Appellants
          Versus
MANEGING TRUSTEES OF DAHIBEN CHERITABLE TRUST ...Respondent

                         SECOND APPEAL NO. 14 of 2014

PATEL BHIKHABHAI KASHIBHAI- DECD. & Ors          ...Appellants
          Versus
MANEGING TRUSTEES OF DAHIBEN CHERITABLE TRUST ...Respondent

================================================================
Appearance:
MR. M.B.PARIKH, ADVOCATE for the Appellants (IN BOTH THE APPEALS)

================================================================

        CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY

                            Date : 19/02/2014

                               ORAL ORDER

1. Challenge in both these Second Appeals is made by the original plaintiffs, to the concurrent findings of both the Courts below, rejecting the plaints under Order VII - Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Page 1 of 20 C/SA/13/2014 ORDER

2. After arguing the matters for some time, learned advocate for the appellants has sought permission of this Court to withdraw both these Second Appeals. At this stage, learned advocate for the appellants is specifically put to notice by the Court that, even then, cost would be imposed on the appellants. Even after this, learned advocate for the appellants has renewed his request to permit him to withdraw these appeals. Permission, as prayed for, is granted. Both these Second Appeals are dismissed as withdrawn.

3. Since these appeals are disposed of as withdrawn, the order, under normal circumstances, should have ended here, however, this Court has found that, the appellants have abused the process of law, and permitting withdrawal of these appeals without imposing costs, would be against the guiding principles and therefore cost is required to be imposed on the appellants. The facts and the reasons for doing so, are as under.

4. The appellants of Second Appeal No.13 of 2014 are the plaintiffs of Regular Civil Suit No.210 of 2009. The said suit was filed in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kalol (District - Gandhinagar). The plaintiffs had sold the land, admeasuring 2 acres and 12 Gunthas, bearing Block No.310 situated at Village

- Dhanaj, Taluka - Kalol, District Gandhinagar, to the present respondent vide Registered Sale Deed (No.1366) executed on 24.06.1992, for the sale consideration of Rs.96,600/-. By the present suit, which was filed in the year 2009, they had prayed for cancellation of the said Sale Deed, by even showing generosity that, they are ready to return the sale consideration of Rs.96,600/-, which they had received in the year 1992.

Page 2 of 20 C/SA/13/2014 ORDER

5. The case of the appellants of Second Appeal No.14 of 2014 is also similar. Except the identification of land with different Block number, the modus and abuse is the same. The appellants of Second Appeal No.14 of 2014, are the plaintiffs of Regular Civil Suit No.211 of 2009. The plaintiffs had sold the land, admeasuring 2 acres and 7 Gunthas, bearing Block No.312 situated at Village - Dhanaj, Taluka - Kalol, District Gandhinagar, to the present respondent vide Registered Sale Deed (No.1365) executed on 24.06.1992, for the sale consideration of Rs.91,350/-. By the present suit, which was filed in the year 2009, they had prayed for cancellation of the said Sale Deed. Even they have shown generosity that, they are ready to return the sale consideration of Rs.91,350/-, which they had received in the year 1992.

6. The Trial Court rejected both the plaints. The Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kalol, vide separate but similar order dated 17.02.2012, rejected both the plaints inter alia taking into consideration the common oral judgment of this Court dated 15.09.2011 delivered in Second Appeals No.67, 68 and 69 of 2011, which was pertaining to the same pieces of land.

7. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Trial Court dated 17.02.2012, the plaintiffs approached the District Court. The plaintiffs of Regular Civil Suit No.210 of 2009 filed Regular Civil Appeal No.138 of 2012 (Old No.10 of 2012). The plaintiffs of Regular Civil Suit No.211 of 2009 filed Regular Civil Appeal No.139 of 2012 (Old No.11 of 2012). The Appellate Court below i.e. the 3rd Additional District Judge, Kalol, dismissed both the appeals vide order dated 29.08.2013 and upheld the rejection Page 3 of 20 C/SA/13/2014 ORDER of plaints as ordered by the Trial Court.

8. It is these orders of the Appellate Court below which are challenged in these Second Appeals. Second Appeal No.13 of 2014 is by the plaintiffs of Regular Civil Suit No.210 of 2009, who were the appellants of Regular Civil Appeal No.138 of 2012 (Old No.10 of 2012) and Second Appeal No.14 of 2014 is by the plaintiffs of Regular Civil Suit No.211 of 2009, who were the appellants of Regular Civil Appeal No.139 of 2012 (Old No.11 of 2012).

9. The foundation of these appeals is that, the cause for rejection of the plaint should be born out from the plain reading of the plaint itself, and the other material, which may be in the form of defence of the other side, cannot be taken into consideration. Both the Courts below have rejected this procedural argument, inter alia recording to the effect that, the crafty drafting cannot make a case good, if otherwise, on facts, there is gross case, against the plaintiffs. The Courts below have, in the present case, found that, the plain reading of the plaint itself shows that, the institution of the suit was barred by limitation. There cannot arise any substantial question of law, to be gone into by this Court in these Second Appeals, in this factual background, and these Second Appeals were to be dismissed at the threshold. Had it been so simple, the request of the appellants, to permit the withdrawal of these appeals, would have been accepted as it is, however, the following further aspects, which are apparent from the impugned orders of the Courts below, have tainted these appeals as abuse of process of law, and therefore it has become necessary to pass order imposing cost.

Page 4 of 20 C/SA/13/2014 ORDER

10. At this juncture, reference is required to be made to the judgment of this Court delivered in Second Appeals No.67, 68 and 69 of 2011, dated 15.09.2011. It is recorded that, the said judgment was challenged before Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India by way of SLPs being Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos.2406 to 2408 of 2012, which were dismissed. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment of this Court dated 15.09.2011, which is taken note of by the Courts below, are as under.

"3. The appellant is the original defendant No.5 in Regular Civil  Suit No.192 of 2003, the original defendant No.12 in Regular Civil  Suit No.193 of 2003 and the original defendant No.2 in Regular Civil  Suit No.194 of 2003. 
 
4. All the aforesaid suits, viz., Regular Civil Suits No.192 of 2003,  193 of 2003 and 194 of 2003 came to be instituted by the respondent  No.1­original plaintiff, seeking declaration as well as for cancellation  of documents. The case of the plaintiff was that the plaintiff was a  registered trust which was running a school by the name of Dahiba  Uttar Buniyadi Shala, at Mouje Village Dantali, Taluka Gandhinagar,  District   Gandhinagar.   The   main   subject   taught   at   the   school   was  Agriculture,   for   which   agricultural   land   was   necessary   for   the  students to obtain practical experience. Since the defendants No.1 to  4 possessed old tenure agricultural lands in the sim of Village Dhanaj,  Taluka   Kalol   bearing   block   No.310,   admeasuring   acres   2   -   12  gunthas, (Hectare-Are-Sq. Mts. 0­93­08), the plaintiff purchased the  same from defendants No.1 to 4 of Regular Civil Suit No.192 of 2003  for a consideration of Rs.96,600/­ by a registered sale deed dated  24.6.1992 and took possession of the said lands on the very same  day.   Similarly,   old   tenure   lands   of   Village   Dhanaj,   Taluka   Kalol  bearing   block   No.311,   admeasuring   Hectare-Are-Sq.   Mts.   2­34­72  Page 5 of 20 C/SA/13/2014 ORDER were purchased by the plaintiff from the defendants No.1 to 11 of  Regular   Civil   Suit   No.193   of   2003   for   a   consideration   of  Rs.2,43,600/­   by   a   registered   sale   deed   dated   24.6.1992   and  possession of the said lands was taken over on the very same day.  Similarly, old tenure lands of Village Dhanaj, Taluka Kalol bearing  block No.312, admeasuring Hectare-Are-Sq. Mts. 0­88­02 were also  purchased   by   the   plaintiff   from   the   defendants   No.1/1   to   1/3   of  Regular Civil Suit No.194 of 2003 for a consideration of Rs.91,350/­  by a registered sale deed dated 24.6.1992 and possession was taken  over on the very same day. On the basis of the sale deeds, the name  of the trust came to be entered in the record of rights, village form  No.6, vide entries No.1004­1003 and 1001. It was further the case of  the   plaintiff   that   the   possession   of   the   said   lands   was   with   the  plaintiff trust till the date of institution of the suit. 
(4.1) Since   the   plaintiff   was   not   an   agriculturist,   in   view   of   the  provisions of section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands  Act,   1948   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the   "Tenancy   Act")   it   was  necessary   to   obtain   the   permission   of   the   Collector,   hence,   the  plaintiff   trust   and   the   defendants  had   made  an   application  under  section 63 of the Tenancy Act of the seeking retrospective permission  for sale of the suit lands, which came to be rejected by the Collector.  Against the order of the Collector, the plaintiff trust filed a revision  application  before  the  Gujarat  Revenue  Tribunal,  which  remanded  the   matter   to   the   Collector.  Thereafter,  the   Collector  by   an   order  dated 10.4.2002, again rejected the application made by the plaintiff  trust.   The   plaintiff   trust   carried   the   matter   in   revision   before   the  Gujarat Revenue Tribunal under section 76 of the Tenancy Act on  13.5.1992  being Revision Application  TEN/BA  No.125/2002  which  was pending at the relevant time and a stay had been granted against  the order of the Collector which fact was known to the defendants. In  this regard, the defendant Pravinkumar  Narendrabhai,  has  given a  Page 6 of 20 C/SA/13/2014 ORDER written reply on 21.12.1993, before the Talati­cum­Mantri, Dhanaj.  The   Mamlatdar   &   Agricultural   Lands   Tribunal   had   initiated  proceedings under section 84C of the Tenancy Act wherein it was  presumed that the suit lands were in their original position. Against  the said order of the Mamlatdar, the plaintiff trust had preferred an  appeal   being   Tenancy   Appeal   No.161   of   1996   before   the   Deputy  Collector   who   had   stayed   the   order   passed   by   the   Mamlatdar.  Subsequently, the appeal came to be allowed. The defendants were  well aware of all the aforesaid proceedings. It was further the case of  the   plaintiff  that  earlier  the  plaintiff   trust   had   instituted   a  suit   in  relation to the suit property being Regular Civil Suit No.169 of 1999,  wherein   the   Court   had   believed   that   the   possession   of   the   suit  property was of the plaintiff trust and had directed maintenance of  status   quo.   However,   as   the   prices   of   land   had   gone   up,   the  defendants  with the malafide intention of grabbing  the  suit lands,  had, in collusion, got together and entered into a conspiracy whereby,  the   defendant  -   Pravinkumar  Narendrabhai  (the  appellant  herein)  had got up a power of attorney, and acting upon the said power of  attorney had of his own made documents in respect of the suit lands  for the purpose of creating wrongful ownership rights over the suit  property by fabricating sale deeds as well as power of attorney. On  23.10.2000, forged and fraudulent sale deeds came to be fabricated  and despite the fact that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit  property and was the owner thereof, with a view to create obstacles,  the   defendant   -   Pravinkumar   Narendrabhai,   on   9.6.2003,   had  instituted Regular Civil Suit No.71 of 2003. Further, the defendant -  Pravinkumar   Narendrabhai   had   by   using   the   power   of   attorney  executed sale deed in his own favour. It was the case of the plaintiff  trust that the other defendants had no right to execute a power of  attorney in favour of Pravinkumar Narendrabhai, despite which, they  had executed a power of attorney in his favour and on the basis of the  said power of attorney, Pravinkumar had executed a false sale deed  Page 7 of 20 C/SA/13/2014 ORDER and that the suit had been instituted for cancellation of the sale deed.  According to the plaintiff, it came to know of the aforesaid sale deed  only when entry came to be made in the revenue record in the year  2003 and when Pravinkumar instituted Regular Civil Suit No.71 of  2003. The plaintiff, accordingly, claimed relief to the effect that the  plaintiff had purchased the lands bearing Block No.310, 311 and 312  on 24.6.1992  by a  registered  sale  deed  and had thus become  the  owners of the said lands and that the defendants had no authority to  appoint the defendant No.5 as a power of attorney and that, it be  declared that the power of attorney has been executed illegally and in  collusion, and that the sale deed executed by the power of attorney in  his own favour is illegal and malafide; and that the said documents  are not binding on the trust. That consequently, the sale deeds be  declared to be void and it be declared that the plaintiff trust is the  legal owner and is in possession of the suit property and that the  defendants do not have any ownership rights in the suit lands.
5.  In   response   to   the   summons   issued   by   the   trial   court,   the  defendants No.1 to 4 of Regular Civil Suit No.192 of 2003 filed a  reply stating that the plaintiff did not have had any right or title in  the   suit   lands   and   that   the   suit   was   time   barred.   Though   it   as  admitted that the defendants No.1 to 4 had executed sale deeds in  favour of the plaintiff trust on 24.6.1992, it was denied that the same  had   been   purchased   by   the   plaintiff   for   the   purpose  of   obtaining  Government grant for educational purposes and that the plaintiff had  taken  possession  of   the   suit   lands.   It   was  further  the   case   of   the  defendants that though the plaintiff's name was entered in the record  of rights vide entry No.1004, the trust not being an agriculturist; the  said entry had been set aside. That the names of the defendants No.1  to 4 were reflected in the agriculturist column in the revenue record  in village form No.7/12 from the year 1996­1997 and that since entry  No.1004 came to be cancelled, the land was standing in its original  Page 8 of 20 C/SA/13/2014 ORDER position and as such, there was no breach of condition. That in view  of the restrictions under law, the sale had been cancelled and the  entry  had  also  been set  aside,  against which  the  plaintiff had not  preferred   any   appeal.   That   the   Mamlatdar   &   Agricultural   Lands  Tribunal, Kalol in proceedings under section 84C of the Tenancy Act,  had held that as the land was in its original position, there was no  breach of condition and had withdrawn the notice under section 84C  of the said Act. That the plaintiff trust not being an agriculturist, had  made an application for retrospective permission to purchase the suit  lands which came to be rejected as the title was not clear. Against the  said order, the plaintiff had preferred revision application before the  Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, which had remanded the matter to the  Collector. The Collector, after hearing the parties, had rejected the  same vide order dated 10.4.2000. Against the said order, the plaintiff  had preferred a revision application, which is pending, wherein the  Revenue Tribunal has suspended the order of the Collector till further  orders. It was the further case of the defendants No.1 to 4 that the  plaintiff   had   instituted   Regular  Civil   Suit   No.169   of   1999   against  Jitendrabhai   M.   Patel   which   was   a   collusive   suit   wherein   false  evidence has been created. That the defendants had been joined as  parties in the said suit on 31.5.2001 and that status quo as regards  the possession was directed to be maintained till the final disposal of  the   suit.   That   subsequently,   the   order   was   amended   and   the  defendants No.1 to 4 were directed to maintain status quo. Against  the said order, the plaintiff had preferred appeals before the District  Court being Appeals No.82 of 2001 and 50 of 2002 wherein, it had  been   ordered   to   maintain   status   quo.   It   was   the   case   of   the  defendants No.1 to 4 that since the possession of the suit lands was  with the defendants No.1 to 4 and the Agricultural Lands Tribunal  vide order dated 20.2.1986 had withdrawn the notice under section  84C of the Tenancy Act, the sale transaction in favour of the plaintiff  was not in accordance with law and the defendants No.1 to 4 were  Page 9 of 20 C/SA/13/2014 ORDER desirous   of   selling   the   suit   land,   they   had   executed   a   power   of  attorney   in   favour   of   Patel   Pravinkumar   Narendrabhai­defendant  No.5 on 29.8.2000 and it was decided to sell the land to him and  upon obtaining the full consideration, a sale deed had been executed  on   23.10.2000   bearing   No.1923   and   that   the   defendant   No.5  (appellant herein) was in actual possession of the suit lands. That  since the defendant No.5 was a small agriculturist, with a view to  avoid the burden of stamp duty, the document had been executed for  Rs.5,000/­.   That   since   the   plaintiff   was   required   to   obtain   a  Government   grant;   the   document   had   been   executed   for   a  consideration   more   than   the   actual   price   of   the   land.   It   was   the  further   case   of   the   defendants   No.1   to   4   that   since   the   sale  transaction with the plaintiff had been cancelled, the defendants No.1  to   4   had  readily  executed  the  power  of   attorney  in  favour  of  the  defendant No.5 and that since the suit lands were situated near the  block   No.309   of   the   defendant   No.5,   the   plaintiff   had   readily  executed the sale deed in his favour on obtaining due consideration  and since then, the defendant was in possession of the suit lands and  was cultivating the same.
6.  The defendant No.5 - Pravinkumar Narendrabhai (appellant  herein)   had   filed   a   written   statement   in   terms   of   the   written  statement filed by the defendants No.1 to 4. It was the further case of  the defendant No.5 that since the defendants No.1 to 4 wanted to sell  their lands, they had given him a power of attorney and as his own  lands   of   survey   No.309   were   situated   next   to   the   suit   lands,   the  defendants No.1 to 4 had willingly taken the consideration and with  their   consent,   a   registered   sale   deed   came   to   be   executed   on  23.12.2000 and possession of the suit lands was taken over by him. It  was the further case of the appellant (defendant No.5) that he had  instituted Regular Civil Suit No.71 of 2003 wherein a panchnama of  the position of the suit lands came to be made and it was found that  Page 10 of 20 C/SA/13/2014 ORDER he was in possession thereof. According to the defendant No.5, he  was in possession of the suit lands and was cultivating the same and  obtaining the yield and as such, the plaintiff was not entitled to the  reliefs prayed for in the suit.
7.  The facts of Regular Civil Suit No.193 of 2003 and 194 of  2003 are more or less similar. Hence it is not necessary to reproduce  the same in detail.
8.  The   trial   court,   after   appreciating   the   evidence   on   record,  decreed   all   the   three   suits   in   favour   of   the   plaintiff   and   gave   a  declaration to the effect that the plaintiff had become the owner of  the  lands  bearing  Blocks  No.310,  311  and  312,  situated  at  Mouje  Village  Dhanaj,  Taluka  Kalol  on  the  basis  of  the  sale  deeds  dated  24.6.1992 and that the defendants No.1 to 4 of Regular Civil Suit  No.192   of   2003,   the   defendants   No.1   to   9   of   Regular   Civil   Suit  No.193 of 2003 and defendants No.1/1 to 1/3 of Regular Civil Suit  No.194 of 2003 (hereinafter for the sake of convenience referred to  as the "original owners") had no authority to appoint the defendant-  Pravinkumar Narendrabhai as power of attorney. Hence, the power of  attorney was illegal, collusive and without authority and as such, was  void. The trial court also gave a declaration to the effect that the sale  deeds No.1922, 1923 and 1924 dated 23.10.2000 in respect of the  suit   lands   bearing   Blocks   No.310,   311   and   312   which   had   been  executed by the power of attorney Pravinkumar Narendrabhai in his  own favour, were illegal, without authority of law and malafide and  were not binding upon the plaintiff trust and further declared the said  sale   deeds   to   be   null   and   void.   The  trial   court   further   granted   a  declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are the legal owners and  are in possession of the Blocks No.310, 311 and 312 and granted  permanent   injunction   against   the   defendants   from   creating   any  obstacles in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the suit  Page 11 of 20 C/SA/13/2014 ORDER lands and from entering into the suit lands.
9. Being   aggrieved,   the   defendants   preferred   appeals   being  Regular Civil Appeals No.18 of 2010, 19 of 2010 and 20 of 2010 in  the Court of the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.1, at  Gandhinagar, which came to be dismissed by a common judgement  and   decree   dated   18.2.2011.   Being   aggrieved,   the   appellant   has  challenged   the   aforesaid   judgement   and   decree   by   proposing   the  following questions stated to be substantial questions of law :
    
[a] to [m] xxx
16. From   the   facts   and   contentions   noted   hereinabove,   it   is  apparent that it is an admitted position that the original owners of the  suit  lands had, by separate  registered sale  deeds dated  24.6.1992,  sold the suit lands namely, the old tenure lands bearing block No.310,  admeasuring acres 2 - 12 gunthas, that is, Hectares- Are­Sq. Mts. 0­ 93­08, old tenure lands bearing block No.311, admeasuring Hectares-  Are­Sq.   Mts.   2­34­72   and   old   tenure   lands   bearing   block  No.312,  admeasuring Hectares- Are­Sq. Mts. 0­88­02 to the respondent No.1­ plaintiff   trust.   That   the   plaintiff   trust   is   a   non­agriculturist   and  therefore, required the permission of the Collector under section 63  of the Bombay Tenancy Act for the purpose of purchasing agricultural  lands.   The   plaintiff   trust,   therefore,   made   an   application   under  section 63 of the Tenancy Act to the concerned Collector, which came  to be rejected. The plaintiff trust carried the matter in revision before  the   Gujarat   Revenue   Tribunal,   which   set   aside   the   order   of   the  Collector and remanded the matter to the Collector for deciding the  same   afresh.   The   Collector   again   by   an   order   dated   10.4.2002,  rejected  the   application.  Against  the  said   order,   the   plaintiff   trust  again went in revision under section 76 of the Tenancy Act, which  came to be allowed and permission was granted to the plaintiff trust  Page 12 of 20 C/SA/13/2014 ORDER to purchase the suit lands. Against the order passed by the Gujarat  Revenue   Tribunal,   the   appellant   filed   a   writ   petition   before   this  Court, which is still pending.
17. It appears that in respect of the sale transactions entered into  between the original owners and the plaintiff trust, the Mamlatdar &  Agricultural Lands Tribunal initiated proceedings under section 84C  of the Tenancy Act, which came to be dropped on the assumption  that the lands were in their original position. In view of the aforesaid  order passed by the Mamlatdar, it appears that entries were made in  the   revenue   record   deleting   the   name   of   the   plaintiff   trust   and  entering the names of the original owners. In the light of the fact that  in the revenue proceedings, the names of the original owners had  again been restored in the revenue records, original owners executed  a   power   of   attorney   in   favour   of   appellant,   Patel   Pravinbhai  Narendrabhai, who on the strength of the  said  power of attorney,  executed   a   sale   deed   in   his   own   favour   on   23.10.2000   for   a  consideration of Rs.5,000/­. It appears that the plaintiff trust had also  instituted a suit being Regular Civil Suit No.169 of 1999 wherein the  possession of the trust was believed and status quo had been granted.  The appellant herein had also instituted a suit being Regular Civil  Suit   No.71   of   2003.   The   plaintiff   trust,   therefore,   instituted   the  present civil suits being Regular Civil Suits No.192 of 2003, 193 of  2003 and 194 of 2003, seeking the reliefs noted hereinabove.
18. The main plank of the submissions advanced by the learned  advocate for the appellant was that the proceedings under section 63  of the Tenancy Act as well as under section 84C of the Tenancy Act  have not attained finality and as such, the Courts below could not  have recorded the findings recorded by them in view of the pendency  of the said proceedings.
Page 13 of 20 C/SA/13/2014 ORDER
19. In   this   regard,   it   may   be   pertinent   to   refer   to   the   reliefs  claimed in the suits instituted by the plaintiff trust. The plaintiff trust,  in  paragraph  3   of   the   plaint,  claimed  relief   to   the  effect  that  the  plaintiff had purchased the lands of Blocks No.310, 311 and 312 on  24.6.1992 by a registered sale deed and had thus become the owners  of the said lands and that the defendants had no authority to appoint  the defendant No.5 as a power of attorney and that, it be declared  that   the   power   of   attorney   has   been   executed   illegally   and   in  collusion, and that the sale deed executed by the power of attorney in  his own favour is illegal and malafide; that the said documents are  not   binding   on   the   trust.   That   consequently,   the   sale   deeds   be  declared to be void and it be declared that the plaintiff trust is legal  owner   and   is   in   possession   of   the   suit   property   and   that   the  defendants do not have any ownership rights in the suit lands.
29. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, there being no legal  infirmity in the impugned judgement and decree passed by the lower  appellate court, the same does not give rise to any question of law,  much less, a substantial question of law so as to warrant interference.  The appeals, therefore, fail and are accordingly dismissed. "

11. As noted above, the above judgment was challenged before Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India by way of SLPs being Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos.2406 to 2408 of 2012. On the said SLPs, the following order is passed on 13.02.2012.

"Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 
We see no valid ground to interfere with the impugned order."

12. The present respondent, defendant in the present suits, was respondent in the above referred matters as well, and Page 14 of 20 C/SA/13/2014 ORDER therefore he was aware of, atleast the judgment of this Court. Under these circumstances, he pointed out these facts to the Trial Court by filing application Exh.10. True it is, that the Trial Court has rejected the plaint inter alia on the basis of this application Exh.10 filed by the defendant, but that itself can not be said as an illegality since it is the concealment of the fatal material facts by the plaintiffs from the Trial Court, which are pointed out by the defendant. A litigant can not be permitted to agitate that the suit ought to have been tried, may be for a sure dismissal, because rejection of the plaint would otherwise result in procedural breach. In my view, the appellants can not be permitted to abuse the process of law, by resorting to such technicalities. The Courts below ought not to have been swayed away by such technical plea, and they have not. The appellants have thought this litigation as buying a lottery ticket, that if luck favours, there will be windfall in their lap, and if does not work, they will not loose anything. Let the message be clear that the Courts of law are not to function like this. Reference in this regard can be made to the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Rakesh Kumar Goel versus U.P.State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and others reported in AIR 2010 SC 2451.

13. Learned advocate for the appellants, to an extent is right in his submission that, the judgment of this Court dated 15.09.2011 can not be termed as concealment of the material fact for the suit, which is filed in the year 2009. According to him, it is neither suppression of any material fact, nor even there was any delay in pointing out the same. However it needs to be recorded that, over and above the suit being time barred, when this aspect was taken into consideration by the Page 15 of 20 C/SA/13/2014 ORDER Trial Court, it has only exhibited lack of bonafide on the part of the plaintiffs on merits, and the matter should have ended there. The very fact that, even in these facts, when the matter is carried to the District Court and then before the High Court, as noted above, can not be permitted like buying a lottery ticket, and the same has to be responded by imposing exemplary cost. It has become more necessary, since it pertains to land. The relevant observations of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India, in this regard are referred hereinafter.

14.1 Learned advocate for the appellants had, before seeking permission to withdraw these appeals, submitted that, substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court and the same be examined by this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The substantial question of law as perceived by the appellants was that, the rejection of the plaint by the Trial Court is by taking into consideration the judgment of this Court dated 15.09.2011 delivered in Second Appeal 67, 68 and 69 of 2011 which was not pointed out by the plaintiff himself, in the circumstances noted above, and this fact was pointed out by the respondent- defendant, and therefore it can not be said that it has been disclosed from the plain reading of the plaint. It is therefore contended that, Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, could not have been pressed into service. It is this legal point which is pressed into service by the present appellants.

14.2 In this regard it needs to be recorded that, this procedural aspect is not to point out that any injustice is meted out to the appellants, but it is more to substantiate that Page 16 of 20 C/SA/13/2014 ORDER potentially, the process could have been abused further, which is obstructed. Both the Courts below, in the above facts, have refused to be swayed away with this procedural aspect, and under these circumstances, this Court finds that, there is no question of law which arises for consideration of this Court. Further, it needs to be recorded that, it is the settled position of law that, a code of procedure, is to be regarded as such. The procedure is designed to facilitate justice and further its ends. It is designed neither as a penal enactment nor to trip people up. Our laws of procedure are grounded on a principle of natural justice which requires that a man should not be condemned unheard. The procedure is the handmaid and not the mistress of the judicial process. Reference in this regard can be made to the decisions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the cases of Sangram Singh Vs. Election Tribunal Kotah reported in AIR 1955 SC 425 and Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu Vs. The Motor and General Traders reported in AIR 1975 SC 1409.

15.1 The observations and mandate of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association Vs. Union of India reported in (2005) 6 SCC 344 is as under.

"37. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that many unscrupulous  parties take advantage of the fact that either the costs are not awarded  or     nominal   costs   are   awarded   on   the   unsuccessful   party.  Unfortunately, it   has become a practice to direct parties to bear their  own costs.   In large   number of cases, such an order is passed despite  Section 35(2) of the   Code.   Such a practice also encourages filing of  frivolous suits.  It also  leads to taking up of frivolous defences.  Further  wherever costs are   awarded, ordinarily the same are not realistic and  are nominal.  When  Section 35(2) provides for cost to follow the event,  Page 17 of 20 C/SA/13/2014 ORDER it   is   implicit  that  the     costs  have  to   be  those  which  are   reasonably  incurred by a successful  party except in those cases where the Court in  its discretion may direct   otherwise by recording reasons thereof.  The  costs have to be actual  reasonable costs including the cost of the time  spent by the successful  party, the transportation and lodging, if any, or  any other incidental cost  besides the payment of the court fee, lawyer's  fee, typing and other cost in  relation to the litigation.  It is for the High  Courts to examine these aspects  and wherever necessary make requisite  rules,   regulations   or   practice   direction   so   as   to   provide   appropriate  guidelines for the subordinate courts  to follow."

15.2 In view of above, it is the discretion of the Court not to impose cost, but for doing so, reasons are required to be recorded. In the present case, learned advocate for the appellants has not been able to point out any factor in favour the appellants, as to why cost should not be imposed. Under these circumstances, cost is required to be imposed and the same has to be commensurate with chequered history of the litigation. It is also recorded that, in the entire memo of these Second Appeals, which are dated 07.12.2013, there is no reference about the above referred decision of this Court dated 15.09.2011, which has not only direct bearing on the facts of this case, but the same is referred to by the Courts below and it is for the very same pieces of land and with almost interwoven controversy.

16. Reference is also required to be made to the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes and Ors. Vs. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria reported in AIR 2012 SC 1727. Paras-84 and 85 thereof, read as under.

Page 18 of 20 C/SA/13/2014 ORDER
" 84.  False claims and defences are really serious problems with real  estate litigation, pre­dominantly because of ever escalating prices of the  real   estate.   Litigation  pertaining   to   valuable  real  estate   properties  is  dragged on by unscrupulous litigants in the hope that the other party  will tire out and ultimately would settle with them by paying a huge  amount. This happens because of the enormous delay in adjudication of  cases in our Courts. If pragmatic approach is adopted, then this problem  can be minimized to a large extent.
85. This Court in a recent judgment in Ramrameshwari Devi and others  (AIR 2011 SC (Civ) 1776 : 2011 AIR SCW 4000) (supra) aptly observed  at page 266  that unless wrongdoers are denied  profit from frivolous  litigation, it would be difficult to prevent it. In order to curb uncalled for  and   frivolous   litigation,   the   Courts   have   to   ensure   that   there   is   no  incentive or motive for uncalled for litigation. It is a matter of common  experience   that   Court's   otherwise   scarce   time   is   consumed   or   more  appropriately, wasted in a large number of uncalled for cases. In this  very judgment, the Court provided that this problem can be solved or at  least be minimized if exemplary cost is imposed for instituting frivolous  litigation.   The   Court   observed   at   pages   267­268   that   imposition   of  actual,   realistic   or   proper   costs   and/or   ordering   prosecution   in  appropriate cases would go a long way in controlling the tendency of  introducing false pleadings and forged and fabricated documents by the  litigants.   Imposition   of   heavy   costs   would   also   control   unnecessary  adjournments   by   the   parties.   In   appropriate   cases,   the   Courts   may  consider   ordering   prosecution   otherwise   it   may   not   be   possible   to  maintain purity and sanctity of judicial proceedings."

17. For the reasons recorded above, it is required that, cost be imposed, in each of these two appeals. In the facts of this case, it is quantified as Rs.25,000/- for each of the two Page 19 of 20 C/SA/13/2014 ORDER appeals. The apportionment of the total amount of Rs.50,000/- is made here below.

18. In the result, the following order is passed.

(A) Both these Second Appeals are dismissed as withdrawn.

(B) Cost of Rs.25,000/- is imposed in each of these two appeals.

(C) From this total amount of Rs.50,000/-, Rs.25,000/- shall be deposited before the Registry of this Court, and remaining Rs. 25,000/- shall be paid to the respondent. Both will be done within a period of two months from today.

(D) The respondent would not be aware of this order. Therefore it is directed to the appellants that, the total amount of Rs.25,000/- payable to the respondent, (Rs.12,500/- by the appellants of each appeal), shall be paid by them, by sending a demand draft, by registered post, within the stipulated time.

(PARESH UPADHYAY, J.) MO Bhati/02-03 Page 20 of 20