Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

- petitioner herein to file the suit before the trial court. C/SCA/14617/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2023 9.3 It is evident that the suit filed by the plaintiff pertains to immovable property situated within the Rajkot District, within the limits of Rajkot Municipal Corporation, in Village Mavdi, Revenue Survey No. 2 Paiki 1 / Paiki 2, comprising approximately land adm. 6475-00 Sq. Mtrs. The land includes proposed T.P. Road and T.P. Reservation, with a remaining land area of approximately land adm. 4208-75 Sq. Mtrs. This remaining land is now non-agricultural (N.A.) land and is permitted for residential building construction. The suit also involves specific plots, with Paiki Plot No. 1 comprising approximately land adm. 1963-48 Sq. Mtrs. and land of Plot No.2, land adm. about 1824-34 Sq. Mtrs, total land is adm. about 3787-82 Sq. Mtrs. and common plot area is adm. about 420-93 Sq. Mtrs. and reserved areas is adm. about 2266-25 Sq. Mtrs. and total land is adm. approximately 6475-00 Sq. Mtrs. sale deed of that land is executed by registered sale deed No.7730 dated 26.11.2018. The plaintiff has also requested in the suit the cancellation of the registered Banakhat/Satakhat (agreement to sell) No. 3026 dated 25.6.2020. Additionally, the plaintiff seeks for declaration that the registered sale deed No. 5006 dated 27th August 2020 and registered Banakhat/Satakhat No. 5272 dated 2nd September 2020 are null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff has prayed for an injunction against C/SCA/14617/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2023 any further transfer or sale. Furthermore, the plaintiff has also sought declaration that as per partnership agreement, plaintiff has also share of 12.5% in the said property. Upon perusing the impugned order, it transpires that the trial court did not express its views in proper grammatical language. However, considering the content of the order, it is observed that the learned trial court has taken into consideration all relevant aspects of the matter and properly dealt with the cited judgments presented during the proceedings. The main contention raised by learned advocate for the petitioner in relation to Section 31 of the is Specific Relief Act and considering the fact that defendant Nos.3 to 5, 12 & 13 are not partners of the M/s Tathya Enterprise as well as considering the applicability of Section 8 of the Act, the dispute cannot be referred to the arbitrator. It is relevant to consider the fact that the suit is filed by the present positioner, who is original plaintiff for cancellation of sale deed as well as agreement to sale by the defendant Nos.1 & 2 and in turn the subsequent purchaser about the property of the partnership firm. It is also relevant to mention that the plaintiff is one of the partners of M/s Tathya Enterprise, while defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are the other partners. Causes 4, 15, and 18 of the partnership deed are as follows: