IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT

Bhagabhai Merakhbhai Vs. Prabodh Prahladbhai Patel & Ors.

02-Nov-2009
Citation Number : LS/Guj/2009/430
Equivalent Citation : 2010 (1) G.L.R. 542
Hon'ble Judges : K. A. PUJ
Applellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Bhagabhai Merakhbhai (Decd.) Through Heirs
Kanjibhai Bhagabhai Bharwad
Respondents/Defendant : Prabodh Prahladbhai Patel and Others
Counsel : B. S. Patel, Chirag B. Patel, S. B. Vakil, Dasankhesara, D. D. Vyas, Dhaval
D. Vyas
Case Number : Appeal From Order No. 215 of 2009 with C.A. No. 6577 of 2009 with
A.O. No. 216 of 2009 and Special Civil Suit No. 38 of 2009
Acts/Rules/Orders : Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948[s. 4, s. 70(b),
s. 76A, s. 32(1)(b)]
Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950[s. 36]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908[O. 39 r. 2A, O. 43 r. 1(r), O. 43 r. 1]
Limitation Act, 1963
Indian Evidence Act, 1872[s. 115]

Cases Referred :
Hanumanthappa Vs. Muninarayanappa 1996 (11) SCC 696

Summary :
K. A. PUJ
Judgment :

The Judgment was delivered by : Hon'ble Justice K. A. Puj

The appellant/original plaintiff has filed Appeal From Order No. 215 of 2009 under
Order 43, Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code challenging the order passed by the learned
2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara below an Application Exh. 5 in Special Civil
Suit No. 38 of 2009 whereby the injunction application filed by the appellant/original
plaintiff was rejected.
2. The appellant/original plaintiff has also filed Appeal From Order No. 216 of 2009
challenging the order passed by the learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge,
Vadodara in Special Civil Suit No. 38 of 2009 rejecting application moved by the
appellant/original plaintiff under Order 39, Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code on 22-5-
2009.

3. This Court has passed an order on 29-6-2009 recording the consent of learned
Advocates appearing for the respective parties to adjourn the matter on 20-7-2009, and
in the meantime, directing the respective parties to maintain status-quo as on that day
without further entering into the merits of the case. Even on 20-7-2009, the Court has
adjourned the matter at the request of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the
respondent and status-quo order was continued. This order of status-quo is continued
till the matter is finally heard by the Court.

4. Heard Mr. B. S. Patel, learned Advocate appearing with Mr. Chirag B. Patel for the
appellant and Mr. S. B. Vakil, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1
and 2 and Mr. D. D. Vyas, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr. Dhaval D. Vyas
for respondent No. 6 in both these Appeals From Order.

5. It is the case of the appellant/original plaintiff that the appellant is belonging to

shepherd community and residing at Vadodara carrying on agricultural activities and
animal husbandry business at Vadodara. The Appeal From Order No. 215 of 2009
pertains to the land bearing Revenue Survey No. 995 admeasuring 1 Acre 32 Are and
52 sq.mtrs. The Town Planning Scheme has been declared and not it has been given
Final Plot No. 109 admeasruing 7750 sq.mtrs., and Final Plot No. 538 admeasuring
1285 sq.mtrs. Deceased father of the appellant was cultivating the land and in the
record of right, his name has been introduced as a tenant since 1954-1955. Even on the
tiller's day i.e. on 1-4-1957 name of deceased Bhagabhai Merakhbhai had been
reflected in the record of right noting down 'dan' paid by him to the owner of the land to
the extent of Rs. 48/-. Hence, because of enactment of the Bombay Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 the father of the appellant became deemed purchaser of
the land and the said tenancy right has not been terminated by any of the competent
authorities under the Tenancy Act till the filing of the present Appeal From Order before
this Court.

6. As per the stand of the appellant, the chequered history of the case is that deceased
Prabodh Khusaldas was the owner of the land who had purchased the land from the
trust and he had initiated the proceedings under Sec. 70(b) of the Tenancy Act. Before
completion of the proceedings, he had expired and the respondent No. 1, being the heir
continued the proceedings. The owner of the land approached the learned Agricultural
Lands Tribunal and Mamlatdar, Vadodara by submitting the application under Sec.
70(b) bearing Tenancy Case No. 5983 of 1988. The said proceedings were for two
lands, one land bearing Revenue Survey No. 970 admeasruing 0 Acre, 90 Gunthas and
Revenue Survey No. 995 admeasruing 3 Acres, 10 Gunthas in the sim of Village :
Bapod, Taluka, District : Vadodara. The deceased father of the appellant had also been
made party as a tenant. The learned Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal,
Vadodara by order dated 19-6-1988 held that the names of deceased Bhagabhai
Merakhbhai and one Laxmidas Narottam have been wrongly reflected in the record of
rights as tenants and the application submitted by the owner of the land i.e. respondent
Nos. 1 to 3 and respondent No. 4 as Power of Attorney holder of the respondent No. 3
had been allowed by order dated 29-6-1988.

7. The Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), Vadodara took the proceedings of Tenancy
Case No. 5983 of 1988 in suo motu revision exercising the powers under Sec. 76A of
the Tenancy Act. After considering the record, legality and propriety of the proceedings,
the Deputy Collector held that, except the land which has been converted for N.A.
purpose, the Mamlatdar has to proceed under the Tenancy Act, and if the tenant is not
prepared to purchase the land, necessary proceedings are required to be initiated under
Sec. 32(1)(b) of the Tenancy Act. The said order has been passed by the Deputy
Collector (Land reforms) Vadodara on 30-6-1990.

8. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Deputy Collector, the respondent Nos. 1 to
5 preferred Revision Application bearing Revision Application No. TEN.B.A. 641 of 1990
before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, Ahmedabad. The Tribunal by judgment and order
dated 21-7-2007 dismissed the Revision Application on the ground of non-prosecution.
Against the said order, the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 preferred Restoration Application
No. TEN.B.A. 1 of 2008 on 17-6-2008. After considering the facts of the case, the
Tribunal vide its order dated 17-6-2008 rejected the said Restoration Application.

9. It is the case of the appellant that after rejection of the Restoration Application on 17-
6-2008 by the Tribunal, only with a view to over-reach the process of law and by taking
some influential persons in their hands, the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 executed six
registered sale-deeds, the details of which are as under :

No. of registered document Date Amount

5984 20-6-2008 52,11,875-00
5985 20-6-2008 8,64,170-00
6235 26-6-2008 4,32,100-00
6235 26-6-2008 26,05,940-00
8976 30-9-2008 3,00,000-00
8977 30-9-2008 15,01,000-00
Total Amount 109,15,085-00
10. All the above sale-deeds had been executed with a view to defeat the proceedings
initiated by the appellant. When the Revision Application before the Tribunal was
pending, the learned Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal passed the order on
10-6-2002 directing the talati of Village : Bapod to draw panchnama for the land bearing
Revenue Survey No. 995 in the sim of Village : Bapod. In pursuance of the same, the
talati-cum-Secretary, Bapod drew the panchnama, and it was found that the appellant is
in possession of the property. The appellant submitted that because of construction in
the surrounding area for the last two to three years, the appellant has not cultivated the
land, but the appellant was residing there. The registered sale-deeds have been
executed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in favour of the respondent No. 6. The sale-
deeds have been executed in the maiden name of the respondent No. 6, while she has
married to Ex-Mayor of Vadodara Municipal Corporation.

11. It is also the case of the appellant that when he came to know that the respondents
are trying to snatch away the possession and to defeat the tenancy proceedings, the
appellant approached the learned Principal Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vadodara by
filing Special Civil Suit No. 38 of 2009 for cancellation of the sale-deeds and also for
permanent injunction as well as temporary injunction. Along with the suit, the appellant
submitted Application Exh. 5 for temporary injunction. Though, the learned Civil Judge
has initially granted ad-interim stay in the form of status-quo qua the possession on 20-
1-2009 the injunction application Exh. 5 was ultimately rejected on 22-5-2009, and it is
this order which is under challenge in the Appeal From Order No. 215 of 2009.

12, When the ad-interim-stay was granted by the learned trial Judge in the form of
status-quo qka possession on 20-1-2009 and notice was issued to the respondents they
appeared before the learned trial Judge and raised the contention that they were not
aware about the death of the father of the appellant who expired on 27-7-1986. Despite
there being ad-interim stay the respondent No. 6 after purchase of the property in
question tried to put up compound wall. The appellant, was therefore, constrained to file
application under Order 39, Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code for breach of the
order passed by the learned trial Judge and the learned trial Judge passed another
order restraining the respondent from disturbing the status-quo. However, the said
application was also rejected by the learned trial Judge on 22-5-2009, and it is this
order which is under challenge in Appeal From Order No. 216 of 2009.

13. Mr. B. S. Patel, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that the
learned trial Judge has seriously erred in not considering the mischief played by the
respondent Nos. 1 to 5 i.e. execution of the sale-deeds within number of days from the
date of the rejection of the Restoration Application dated 17-6-2008 by the Revenue
Tribunal. He has further submitted that the appellant was the tenant and his interest is
required to be protected under provisions of the Tenancy Act. He has further submitted
that the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 have submitted their application under Sec. 70(b) of the
Tenancy Act only in the year 1988. He has further submitted that the respondents have
not filed any petition challenging the order of the Tribunal till 3-2-2009 and despite the
fact that the deceased father of the appellant expired in the year 1986, in Special Civil
Application filed before this Court, he was joined as a party respondent and order was
obtained on the dead person. He has further submitted that the appellant has moved
the review application before this Court which is still pending before the learned Single
Judge of this Court. It is further submitted that vital aspect of the matter has not been
considered by the learned trial Judge. The appellant was in possession in the year 2002
as per the panchnama drawn by Talati-cum-Secretary of Village : Bapod. He has further
submitted that the tenancy rights of the appellant were yet to be decided by the
Mamlatdar pursuant to the direction issued by the Dy. Collector which order has been
confirmed by the Revenue Tribunal and yet the sale-deeds were executed by the
respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in favour of respondent No. 6 only with a view to frustrate the
tenancy rights of the appellant. He has further submitted that the learned trial Judge has
ignored the settled principle of law to the effect that the contemners are not required to
be heard before they purge the contempt. Here, in the present case, instead of
punishing the respondents they have been given premium by rejecting the injunction
application of the appellant. It is further submitted that despite there being documentary
evidence in favour of the appellant the learned trial Judge has rejected the injunction
application without considering such documentary evidence produced by the appellant
on record. Mr. Patel, has therefore, submitted that the order passed by the learned trial
Judge below an Application Exh. 5 is required to be quashed and set aside and the
order of status-quo which was granted earlier is required to be ordered to be restored
during the pendency of the suit. He has also submitted that since the respondents have
committed breach of the order of the Court, they are to be punished accordingly.

14. Mr. D. D. Vyas, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6, on the
other hand, strongly objected to this Appeal From Order. The respondent No. 6 has
filed a detailed affidavit-in-reply to the Civil Application opposing to grant any interim
relief in the Appeal From Order. Mr. Vyas first of all submitted that the appellant has
deliberately suppressed many material facts in Special Civil Suit No. 38 of 2009. He has
submitted that a suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 274 of 1959 was filed by Fatehchand
Motichand, one of the trustees of Bai Jekor widow of Valabhram Ramchand against
Bharwad Bhaga Merakh (father of the appellant) and Bharwad Vagha Vajekaran for
possession of Revenue Survey Nos. 82, 995, 976 and 977 which included the suit land.
The said suit came to be decreed and the trustee of the above-referred trust also filed
execution proceedings being Regular Darkhast No. 112 of 1961 and by virtue of the
same, the possession of the suit land came to be taken by the Court Commissioner and
handed over to the trustee of the trust. One Application No. 70 of 1961 was filed by the
trustee of the aforesaid trust for obtaining permission under Sec. 36 of the Bombay
Public Trust Act, 1950 from the Charity Commissioner to sell the property, which was
granted on 4-5-1961. The sale-deed came to be executed on 1-11-1961 in favour of one
Prabhudas Khushalbhai Patel, who is father of respondent No. 1, and hence, by virtue
of the said sale-deed, the respondent Nos. 1 to 5/defendants became the owners of the
suit property.

15. Mr. Vyas further submitted that proceedings under Sec. 32(1)(b) of Bombay
Tenancy Act were initiated by the Mamlatdar & Krushi Panch, Vadodara. The appellant
has also suppressed the fact that in 1988, the proceedings were initiated before the
Mamlatdar's Court wherein on 20-6-1988 the present appellant has given examination
in chief wherein he has clearly stated that from 1955- 1957, he or his father were not in
possession of the subject land. He has also stated that the father of the plaintiff had
never cultivated the land and the plaintiff does not even know the original land owners.
He has further stated that by an order, his father's name was deleted from the revenue
record, against which the plaintiff's father has not filed any proceedings. Mr. Vyas
further submitted that the appellant has also suppressed material fact before this Court
as well as before the trial Court to the effect that once his father was dispossessed from
the suit land in an execution proceedings No. 112 of 1961, then how the present
appellant came into possession of the suit property is nowhere mentioned. He has,
therefore, submitted that on the ground of suppression of material fact from the notice of
this Court, the present Appeal From Order deserves to be dismissed.

16. Mr. Vyas has further submitted that the respondent No. 6 is bona fide purchaser and
has paid a huge consideration to the tune of more than Rs. 1 crore to the respondent
Nos. 1 to 5 and have got sale-deeds executed from them. Hence, if any interim relief is
granted, the same would affect her legal rights. He has further submitted that the sale-
deeds, which are executed in favour of the respondent No. 6 are narrated in the form of
table shown below :

Sr. Sale-deed F. P. Admeasuring Amount of sale-deed Date of sale-

No. No. No. (sq.mtrs.) (in Rs.) deed
1. 6236 109/P 1937-50 26,05,940 26-6-2008
2. 6235 538/P 321-25 4,31,100 26-6-2008
3. 5985 538/P 642-50 8,64,170 20-6-2008
4. 5984 109/P 3875 52,11,875 20-6-2008
5. 8976 583/P 321-25 3,00,000 30-9-2008
6. 8977 109/P 1937-50 15,01,000 30-9-2008

17. He has further submitted that if the injunction is not granted to the present appellant,
who admittedly is not and cannot be in possession of the suit land, the same would not
cause any hardships to the appellant inasmuch as by virtue of decree passed in
Regular Civil Suit No. 274 of 1959, and subsequently, in Darkliast Application No. 112
of 1961, the possession of the suit land was taken from the father of the present
appellant by the Civil Court and the trustee of the trust, namely, Fatehchand Motichand,
one of the trustees of Bai Jekor widow of Valabhram Ramchand was put into
possession of the suit land. It is nowhere mentioned by the appellant as to how after the
possession was taken by Court Commissioner in the proceedings of Darkliast No. 112
of 1961, the appellant came back into possession of the suit land.

18. Mr. Vyas further submitted that the appellant is bound by admissions in the
proceedings before the Mamlatdar, (which was first in time in the year 1988) and is
estopped from taking a contrary stand as per the provisions of Sec. 115 of the Evidence
Act. He has further submitted that in the proceedings before the Mamlatdar, the
appellant had categorically stated that they were never in possession of the suit land.
They are not the tenants of the suit land and that they had never cultivated the suit land.
The said statement is recorded by the Mamlatdar on 20-6-1988. The appellant is
estopped from taking any stand which is contrary to the above statement.

19. Mr. Vyas further submitted that the Revenue proceedings and the order which are
placed on record by the appellant along with the suit would not come to the rescue of
the appellant as in none of the proceedings the present appellant has explained as to
how the appellant came back into possession of the suit land once the possession was
taken in the Regular Darkhast No. 112 of 1961.

20. Mr. Vyas further submitted that the appellant has filed present suit with mala fide
intention only with a view to harass the respondent No. 6 and to extort money from her
and that the suit is an abuse of process of the Court. The appellant has only prayed in
the suit for cancellation of sale-deeds executed in favour of the respondent No. 6. The
respondent Nos. 1 to 5 who executed the sale-deed in favour of the respondent No. 6
have become owners of the suit land by virtue of registered sale-deed dated 31-10-
1961 executed by Fatehchand Motichand, one of the trustees of Bai Jekor widow of
Valabhram Ramchand. The appellant had notice thereof. The appellant had not
challenged the same or the title of any vendors. Any suit of the appellant challenging the
sale-deed dated 31-10-1961 became time-barred. In an effort to get over the said bar,
the appellant had not challenged the sale-deed dated 31-10-1961 and confined the
challenge to the sale-deeds in favour of the respondent No. 6. He, has therefore,
submitted that what is challenged in the suit is the sale-deed executed in favour of the
respondent No. 6. This is nothing but an intelligent attempt on the part of the appellant
not to fall within the ambit of Limitation Act. He has further submitted that the appellant
has slept over his right for almost 48 years, and hence, now it is not permissible to
challenge the sale transaction which has been executed in favour of the respondent No.
6.

21. Mr. Vyas further submitted that the respondent No. 6 is lawful owner and in lawful
possession of the suit land. Hence, as per the settled legal preposition of law, no
injunction can be granted against the lawful owner. In support of his submission he
relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Hanumanthappa v.
Muninarayanappa, 1996 (11) SCC 696

22. Mr. Vyas further submitted that it is settled law that a person who claims to be in
possession of the land is required to establish that he is in lawful possession, but in the
present case, against the background of dispossession in a Court proceedings as far
back as in 1961, the appellant has not uttered even a single word as to how he came
into possession of the suit land even though, the possession of the suit land was taken
over by the Court Commissioner in the proceedings of Darkhast Application No. 112 of
1961 and handed over to Fatehchand Motichand, one of the trustees of the trust.

23. Mr. Vyas further submitted that the appellant does not fall within the definition of
'deemed tenant'. Section 4 of the Tenancy Act defines the word 'deemed tenant' which
says that a person lawfully cultivating any land belonging to another persons shall be
deemed to be a tenant if such land is not cultivated personally by the owner and if such
person is not (a) a member of the owner's family, or (b) a servant on wages payable in
cash or kind, but not in crop share or a hired labourer cultivating the land under the
personal supervision of the owner or any member of the owners, family, or (c) a
mortgagee in possession.

24. Based on this definition, Mr. Vyas submitted that the person should be lawfully
cultivating the land belonging to another person but in the present case, the appellant
himself has given statement before the Mamlatdar on 20-6-1988 that his father was
neither a tenant nor was cultivating the suit land. It is also admitted that since 1961 by
virtue of sale-deed executed by one trustee of the trust the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 were
in possession of the suit land till the sale-deed came to be executed in favour of the
respondent No. 6, and hence, the say of the appellant that he is the tenant of the suit
land is false, incorrect and baseless. He has further submitted that even the say of the
appellant that he is in possession of the suit land and he is tenant of the suit land get
falsified from the act of the Mamlatdar, who has initiated the proceedings under Sec.
32(1)(b) of the Bombay Tenancy Act and the said proceedings can be initiated only if
the tenant is not in possession of the suit land. It is, therefore, clearly established that
the appellant who claims to be tenant and in possession of the suit land was not in fact
in possession of the suit land. The appellant has failed to establish as to how he came
into possession of the suit land after the proceedings were initiated by the Mamlatdar
under Sec. 32(1)(b) of the Tenancy Act.

25. Considering all these submissions Mr. Vyas has strongly urged that the order
passed by the learned trial Judge does not call for any interference and the Appeal
From Order deserves to be dismissed with costs.

26. Mr. S. B. Vakil, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 -
original owner of the land in question, has more or less adopted the arguments
canvassed by Mr. Vyas, learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent No. 6 -
purchaser. He has further submitted that the appellant has filed the suit for cancellation
of the sale-deed executed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in favour of the respondent No.
6. However, the appellant has not prayed for cancellation of sale-deed executed in
favour of the father of the respondent No. 1 by the original land owner after obtaining
permission of the Charity Commissioner under Sec. 36 of the Bombay Public Trust Act.
He has further submitted that the original land owner has obtained decree in his favour
and in the execution proceedings the possession was handed over by the Court
Commissioner to the original owner. He has, therefore, submitted that the decree of the
competent Civil Court which remains unchallenged till this date operates as res-judicata.
He has further submitted that it is only because of the decree passed by the competent
Court the name of the deceased father of the appellant was deleted from the revenue
record. Since, the decree was passed in 1961 the name of the deceased father of the
appellant was deleted from that year onwards. There is no question of deleting the
previous entries from the revenue record and simply on that basis, the appellant cannot
claim to be the deemed tenant as on the tillers date i.e. 1-4-1957. Even otherwise, the
Bombay Tribunal has passed an order in Revision Application No. TEN/B/A/8191 dated
29-4-1959 wherein it is held that Bhagabhai Merakhbhai, deceased father of the
appellant was not a tenant and he was a trespasser, and hence, the entry in revenue
record treating him as a tenant was required to be deleted. He has further submitted
that neither Bhagabhai Merakhbhai deceased father of the appellant nor the appellant
has made any application from the date of their dispossession i.e. from 1961 till this
date treating them as deemed purchaser. The deceased father of the appellant has
expired in 1986. From 1961 to 1986 he has not moved any application and from 1986
onwards the appellant has also not made any such application till this date. It is only for
the first time in 2008 Civil Suit was filed by the appellant seeking cancellation of the
sale-deed executed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in favour of the respondent No. 6.
Unless and until the original sale-deed is challenged or it is cancelled by the competent
Court, there is no question of cancellation of subsequent sale-deed. He has, therefore,
submitted that the learned Civil Judge has rightly rejected the injunction application and
said order of the learned Civil Judge does not call for any interference by this Court.

27. Having heard learned Counsels appearing for the parties and having gone through
the impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge in light of the documents
produced before the Court and the orders passed by the various authorities from time to
time, the Court is of the view that the order passed by the learned Civil Judge while
rejecting the injunction application moved by the appellant, does not call for any
interference while exercising appellate jurisdiction under Order 43, Rule 1(r) of the Civil
Procedure Code. There is no dispute about the fact that one of the trustees of Bai Jekor
widow of Valabhram Ramchand Trust filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 274 of 1959 against
late Bhagabhai Merakhbhai - deceased father of the appellant along with Bharwad
Vagha Vajekaran for possession of Revenue Survey Nos. 82, 995, 976 and 977. The
said suit came to be decreed in favour of the trust and in Regular Darkhast No. 112 of
1961 the possession was taken by the Court Commissioner and it was handed over to
the said trustee of the trust. There is also no dispute about the fact that the trustee of
the said trust has executed the saie-deed in favour of one Prabhudas Khushalbhai Patel
- father of the respondent No. 1 on 1-11-1961 after obtaining permission from the
Charity Commissioner under Sec. 36 of the Bombay Public Trusi Act. It is also an
admitted position that the present appellant has himself given his statement before the
Mamlatdar in the proceedings under Sec. 32(1)(b) of the Tenancy Act to the effect that
he or his father were not in possession of the subject land nor they were cultivating the
said land as tenants. He has further stated that the name of his father was deleted from
the revenue record which has not been challenged. From these admitted facts, it
becomes crystal clear that during the life-time of the deceased father of the appellant
from 1961 to 1986 his dispossession from the disputed land was never challenged and
from 1986 to 2008 the present appellant has also not challenged the said
dispossession. The appellant has more or less relied on the panchnama drawn in the
year 2002 by the Talati of the Village : Bapod certifying that he is in possession.
However, the said panchnama was drawn in absence of the present respondent and it
has not come on record on any proceeding that after the dispossession of the deceased
father of the appellant from the disputed land in 1961, when the present appellant came
to be in possession of the disputed land. Thus, as against plethora of evidence
produced by the respondent Nos. 1 to 6, the solitary evidence of the alleged
panchnama drawn in 2002 does not inspire confidence of the Court. The arguments of
Mr. Patel that the revenue entries indicate the name of the deceased father of the
appellant on the tillers' day i.e. 1-4-1957 and that he was cultivating the land, and
hence, the appellant should be considered as the deemed purchaser of the land cannot
be accepted for the simple reason that the present appellant has himself in the
proceeding before the Mamlatdar admitted that neither he nor his deceased father were
in possession of the disputed land nor they were cultivating the said land. Even
otherwise, their dispossession from the suit land is not challenged till this date. The
order of the Bombay Land Tribunal passed in 1959 declares the deceased father of the
appellant as trespasser and he was not considered to be a tenant of the disputed land.
The appellant has merely challenged the cancellation of the subsequent sale-deed
executed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in favour of the respondent No. 6, without
challenging the earlier sale-deed executed by the trustee of the trust in favour of the
deceased father of the respondent No. 1. It is also important to note that the decision of
the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal rejecting the application of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 for
restoration of their revision is challenged before this Court in Special Civil Application
and it is informed to the Court that the said Special Civil Application has been allowed
and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for deciding it afresh. Though, the present
appellant has moved the Review Application for recalling the said order as the order
was passed on dead person, the said application is however pending. Be that as it may,
the same would not have much bearing on the issue involved in the present Appeal
From Order.

28. In view of the submissions made before the Court on behalf of the respondents and
the documents produced in support of those submissions and in view of the findings
arrived at by the learned Civil Judge after appreciation of the evidence on record and
discretion exercised by him while rejecting the injunction application, the Court does not
see any justification to interfere in the said discretionary order. Since, all the three
ingredients i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury are
lacking in the present case, the Court is not inclined to grant any relief in the present
Appeal From Order. Hence the Appeal From Order No. 215 of 2009 fails without any
order as to costs.

29. Since, the Appeal fails the Civil Application No. 6577 of 2009 no longer survives and
it is accordingly disposed of.

30. So far as Appeal From Order No. 216 of 2009 is concerned, it is against the order
of the learned Civil Judge rejecting the appellant's application for taking action against
the respondents for committing breach of ad-interim order passed by the learned Civil
Judge in the pending suit. The learned Civil Judge has rejected the said application on
the ground that ultimately Exh. 5 application is rejected, and hence, there is no question
of committing any breach of the order. It is a matter of record that when the ad-interim
order was passed, the possession was undisputedly with the respondent No. 6 and the
respondent No. 6 was lawful owner of the disputed land by virtue of the sale-deed
executed in her favour. At the time of the status-quo order passed by the learned Civil
Judge, the work of putting up the compound wall was going on, and hence, she was of
bona fide view that the order of status-quo would not prevent her from constructing the
said compound wall. In any case, she was of the bona fide view and there was no
breach, much less intentional breach, if any, and hence, the Court does not find any
justification in showing any indulgence in the order passed by the learned Civil Judge.
Hence, Appeal From Order No. 216 of 2009 is also dismissed without any order as to
costs.
31. Request to grant stay against the operation of this order and to continue the order
of status-quo for some time is rejected.

>>>>

Dear Guest,

Of course, RJ is known amongst the lay public as a "legendry investor" but the FACTS
are that, he is but a VERY SMALL part of the group of syndicate of Market
Manipulators... They all indulge in "systemic manipulations"... RJ mostly acts as a
FRONT when "THEY" wish to convey something to the general market... well suited to
their requirements... I don't remember a "single incident" of RJ precisely & honestly
telling the lay public "what he buys or sell & why?"... and when their names ultimately
appears in the list of major investors in the share-holding pattern report ... MUST
CONSIDER that, the real game (of buying or selling) has long-back been OVER.... They
are simply FOOLING people on a mass scale....If you want to verify... see last 10-15
years weekly chart of their stocks... you will very easily know what I mean to convey!!!

Xxx

To,

Mr. Nilesh Vadher A. Dy. M / Mr. Mamlatdar Shri

Mamlatdar Office, Taluka Seva Sadan, Three Gates,

Tal. Khambhat, Dist. Anand

Sub: Reminder to settle our very long pending matter (since Dec 18, 2013) about the
Mutation & Certification of RoR Entry related to my N.A. Plot of R. S. No- 30/2, Village
Undel, Taluka - Khambhat.
Dear Mr. Nilesh Vadher A. Dy. M / Mr. Mamlatdar Shri - Khambhat

After my very recent Application dated April, 11, 2014, which was duly submitted as per
your advice & insistence as well as an e-mail sent to you on dated April, 11, 2014 along
with two attachments of Honble Gujarat High Court Orders in PDF for your reference &
official record to help you to expedite the matter at the earliest . Upon the receipt of
my Application & Email dated April 11, 2014, you had then quickly recorded our Kachi
RoR Entry No 15442 related R. S. No- 30/2, Village Undel, Taluka Khambhat on
dated April 13, 2014....

During our subsequent meeting on dated 13 05 2014 you had also assured to us to
expedite the matter as soon as possible within a week or so We called you on May,
20, 2014 but there were a message of not reachable coming from your mobile, then
we had called you on May 21 2014 once again, as you were busy you had sent a SMS
saying that I call you later and then you called us in the evening of May 21 2014 that
you will accomplish the job of certification ROR entry mentioned above in a day or two
then we called you once again on May 23 2014, at that time you told us that due to
absence of computer operators. You were not able to certify the ROR entry discussed
above

Now I am sending you this e-mail remainder to quickly expedite the very long pending
matter of Certification of Entry No- No 15442 dated April 13, 2014

According to the very recent strict directive of Honble Chief Minister of Gujarat Madam
Anandiben M. Patel, that there should be ZERO pendency of pending work I hope
you will understand the message conveyed by our newly appointed C.M and will surely
expedite the matter

Tomorrow (May 27, 2014) I have an appointment with Hon. Prant Saheb, so I will also
meet you to if needed to further follow up the matter
By the way, today also we are finding your mobile unreachable !!!

With regards,

Ajay Brahmbhatt

94270 34367

Village : Undel Taluka: Khambhat

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Ajay Brahmbhatt <ajaybrahmbhatt@gmail.com>

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 06:45:47 -0700

Subject: TWO HON. GUJARAT HIGH COURT JUDGMENT RELATED TO SEC 135 D
NOTICE

To: vnilesh33@yahoo.in

To,

Mr. Nilesh Vadher,

Dy. Mamlatdar, E-Dhara,

Mamlatdar Office

Tal. Khambhat, Dist. Anand

As discussed today evening at Mamlatdar Office related to the matter

of UNDEL R.S. NO. 30/2 N.A. PLOT ROR Entries... as requested by you I

am sending herewith two pdf files... Kindly download both the files

and refer & duly compare it as has been mentioned in my application

dated 28-02-2014....

Find attached two PDF files of the judgment of Hon. Guj High Court

related to issues of Sec 135 D Notice.....

1 - In judgment of "Agricultural Produce Market ... vs Deputy

Mamlatdar And 8 Ors. on 14 September, 2006" refer to para no 5 as an

"operating ruling" for the matter

2 - In judgment of "Ramnikbhai Mavjibhai And 5 Ors. vs State Of

Gujarat And Anr. on 15 February, 2008" refer to para no 10 as an

"operating ruling" for the matter

regards,
Ajay Brahmbhatt

94270 34367

Undel

As per our already officially submitted various documents to the Office of Mamlatdar
Khambhat:

I am hereby submitting you my chronological proceeding we have done to date starting

from dated 18-12-2013

1 - First Application for "Record Durashti & request for Mutation Entry with necessary
supporting documentary evidences"

2 - Reminder Application dated Jan 6, 2014.... to Certify the Kachi Entry No 15349
recorded on dated 27-12-2013...

3 - Due to total inactions and deliberate delays in attending to our legally valid by you, I
had to file Complaint Application on dated 28-02-2014..... with a Copy duly marked to
Hon. Prant Officer

>>>>
Dear Guest,

First do a Google Search for Bulk Deals

Then go to BSE web link like - BSE Equity : Bulk Deals

Which will provide details of Bulk Deals reported by the Members.

In which you will find VERY SAME ENTITY BUYING / SELLING near identical quantitiessame is the case with any listed
company you will find matching quantities trades done by same entities or buying by one entity & selling by other entity but Date
of trade & quantities remains nearly the same. Is it not Circular Trading?

Same kind of trades are also done for smaller quantities which is generally not reported / disseminated under the Bulk / Block Deals
categories for public knowledge by BSE / NSE due to sheer volumes of reporting may be involved on account of very large
numbers of smaller trades executed by numerous traders.
Circular Trading is well adopted Global phenomena most extensively used by jobbers & market manipulators according to their short
or long term plan of either pumping or dumping of the stock..

Regards,

ARB

regards,

Ajay Brahmbhatt

94270 34367

Undel

Dear ALL Investors of DGML...

Please DO NOT SELL YOUR SHARES for atleast NEXT 18 month.. be prepared to
WRITE-OFF you Investment but DO NOT EVER THINK OF SELLING IT... till Dec
2016...

There are atleast THREE boarder who are out to misguide you... so beware of them...

Above are purely my personal views... Posted in public interest....And with ABSOLUTE
GOOD FAITH... If you have any financial problems or can not withstand losses... do
what ever you want due to your individual conditions...