- (1.)BY way of present appeals, the appellants have challenged the legality and validity of the judgment and order dated 14th September 1989 passed by the City Civil Judge, Court No.12, Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No.3094 of 1981 and Civil Suit No.1827 of 1983, whereby the trial Court has rejected the suits preferred by the appellants.
(2.)THE brief facts of the case are that both the suits have been filed by the appellant-original plaintiff against the respondents-original defendants in respect of the same piece of land bearing Survey No.306, admeasuring 2 Acres and 14 Gunthas. As per the case of the appellant-original plaintiff, the appellant-original plaintiff is in possession of the land bearing City Survey No.306, Dariapur-Kazipur Ward for the last 40 years as an owner thereof and the respondents-original defendants are making attempt to commit trespass into the suit land which is of the possession of the appellant and they are also making attempt to take possession of the suit land from the appellant. THErefore, the appellant made an application to the Commissioner of Police. According to the appellant, the respondents have no right to enter into the suit land or any part thereof. However, the respondents are attempting to make some construction on some portion of the suit land and if they succeed in doing so, irreparable loss or injury would be caused to the appellant. Hence, by way aforesaid suits, the appellant has prayed for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from entering the land bearing City Survey No.306 and making any construction thereon. THE said suits ultimately came to be dismissed by the trial Court. Hence, present appeals.
Mr.J.R. Nanavati, learned advocate for the appellant, has submitted that the trial Court has erred in holding that the appellant is not the owner and in possession of the suit land; that the trial Court ought to have held that under a false representation and allurement, the respondents had started construction of surrounding compound wall; that the trial Court has erred in construing and interpreting the permanent lease deed dated 29th October 1929; that the trial Court has erred in holding that the appellant voluntarily handed over the possession of the suit land which he was tilling, to the respondent No.1 in the proceedings of Tenancy Court; that the trial Court has erred in holding that the document at Exhibit 232 has been executed by the appellant in favour of Maheshwari Mills and that before tiller's day i.e. 01st April 1957, the appellant had in the proceedings before the City Taluka Mamlatdar voluntarily handed over the possession of the suit land to the mill which was a permanent lessee; that the trial Court erred in holding that the receipts at Exhibits 211 and 212 supports the case of the respondents; that the trial Court ought to have held that the appellant had constructed the huts and given on lease to other persons of his acquaintance or relatives and the same is clearly proved by Exhibits 62 to 68 as well as Exhibits 216 to 218. In view of aforesaid submissions, it is prayed that present appeal may be allowed.

Mr.P.K. Soni, learned advocate for the respondent No.1, has submitted that the trail Court has after taking into consideration the relevant aspects of the matter and appreciating the evidence on record rightly come to the conclusion, which is just and proper. In that view of th matter, present appeal may be dismissed.

(3.)HAVING considered the rival contentions raised by the learned advocates for the respective parties, averments made in the appeal and the documentary evidence produced on record, it transpires that the appellant had handed over the possession of the entire land in question i.e. Survey No.306, to the respondent-Mill in the year 1956 and thereafter, the respondent-Mill by way of a registered writing at Exhibit 232 dated 24th November 1956 gave 100 square yards of land to the appellant on permanent lease at an annual rate of Rs.0-50 ps. only for the purpose of being used for non-agricultural purpose i.e. for the purpose of making construction thereon for the personal residential use of the appellant and the members of his family and the appellant was in possession only of that portion of the land on the strength of that writing. It is also admitted by the respondents that some persons had committed trespass on the suit land and they have made construction thereon but the respondent-Mill entered into an agreement with those trespassers who had erected their huts on some portion of the suit land. The respondent-Mill paid Rs.15,000/- to each of those hut dwellers in order to find out the alternative accommodation and obtained possession from them and thereafter on or around February, 1983, the compound wall was erected by the respondent-Mill surrounding the suit land at the cost of Rs.43,122-27 ps. 5.1 The respondents have produced on record before the trial Court an agreement dated 05th February 1983 at Exhibit 226/A executed between the respondent-Mill and Moinkhan Munirkhan Pathan and 35 other persons, wherein it is enumerated that on 2700 sqare yards of land of the ownership of respondent-Mill, the persons whose name have been stated in the said document at Exhibit 226/A had at different point of time constructed their huts and since then they were residing in those huts. However, since the respondent-Mill agreed to pay an amount of Rs.3,75,000/- to them as per the terms of the said agreement, they agreed to vacate their possession over the suit land, including the superstructure. Thereafter, as per the say of the respondent-Mill they had paid the said amount to the aforesaid persons and the respondent-Mill obtained possession of the land from them and since then the respondent-Mill had made construction of surrounding wall and they are in actual possession of the suit land. Thus, this aspect has been rightly dealt with and appreciated by the trial Court after taking into consideration the pros and cons of the matter and appreciating the evidence on record available. 5.2 Further, Shankarbhai Nathabhai Datani, who has been examined vide Exhibit 221, has admitted that he and other persons whose names have been mentioned in the document at Exhibit 226/A, have executed the agreement with the respondent-Mill. The said witness has also stated that the respondent-Mill paid the amount to each of them in order to find out an alternative accommodation and all the signatories to the said document had handed over vacant possession of their respective pieces of land to the respondent-Mill and that thereafter, the respondent-Mill had constructed the compound wall surrounding the said land. Further, it is needless to mention that it would not be possible that the persons who have received such a huge sum from the respondent-Mill would ever be handing over possession of the suit land to the appellant. Further, the writings at Exhibits 62 to 88 and Exhibits 216 to 218 falsify the story put forth by the appellant that he had constructed all the huts and given them on lease to various hut dwellers. So the aforesaid writings falsify the story of the appellant in his notice at Exhibit 33 that he has put up about 40 huts at his cost and has spent an amount of Rs.50,000/- and the respondent-Mill has damaged the same by removing such huts. 5.3 It is pertinent to note that even the respondent-Mill has examined Kanaiyalal Satdev Sharma, Liaison Officer of the respondent-Mill at Exhibit 226, wherein he has stated that on the strength of the agreement dated 05th February 1983 (Exhibit 226/A), they got possession of the respective parcels of the land on which encroachment was made by those persons and thereafter the respondent-Mill constructed surrounding compound wall at the cost of Rs.43,122.27 ps., for which they have produced the receipt in respect of payment of Rs.43,122.27 ps. issued by the contractor Lalit A. Parikh is produced at Exhibit 227. Thus, the aforesaid documentary evidence supports the say of the respondent-Mill and in that view of the matter, even the production of writings obtained by the appellant from some of the hut dwellers or even the production of receipts and demand bills of Municipality and such other documents which have been produced and discussed by the trial Court, do not go to show that the appellant was either in possession or owner of the suit land. It is also stated by the said witness Kanaiyalal that though all the hut dwellers handed over possession of the suit land to the respondent-Mill, the appellant has neither raised any objection nor has he given any application to anybody that the Mill has illegally obtained possession of the suit land from them. Further, so far as 100 sq.yds. of land given on permanent lease to the appellant is concerned, the said witness Kanaiyalal has stated that the respondent-Mill has never threatened to disturb the possession of the appellant over the said parcel of land. 5.4 It is required to be noted that it is not that only respondent Nos.1 and 3 of First Appeal No.62 of 1990 were in possession of some portion of the suit land, but there were about 35 to 40 other persons who were also in possession of some portion of the land bearing Survey No.306 and the respondent-Mill appears to have got the land in question in their possession vacated by paying them some compensation for finding out an alternative accommodation. Thus, in view of aforesaid, it is crystal clear that the appellant is neither the owner nor in possession of the suit land.
In view of aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the trial Court has assigned cogent and convincing reasons for arriving at the conclusion. Over and above the aforesaid reasons, I adopt the reasons assigned by the trial Court and do not find any illegality much less any perversity in the findings recorded. I am in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the trial Court. No case is made out to interfere with the findings recorded by the trial Court. Hence, present appeals deserve to be dismissed.