- (1.) Legal heirs of a plaintiff (Vrajlal J. Ganatra) who suffered defeat both at the original side as well as at the appellate stage (High court of Gujarat) have filed this appeal by special leave. Defendant in the suit (Parshottam S. Shah) is now being substituted by his legal heirs. The suit relates to a property covered by Ext. 66 sale deed dated 16/12/1963. It was claimed to be the property of the plaintiff even though the defendant was shown in the document as the vendee. Suit was filed in 1981 for declaration of plaintiff's title to the suit property and also for an injunction for restraining the defendant from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff. Trial court while dismissing the suit held that plaintiff failed to prove his title that he was the real owner of the property and that plaintiff failed to establish that he was in possession of it on the date of suit. The High court concurred with the finding of the trial court regarding title but did not proceed to consider the other issue regarding possession. However, the High court further held that suit had been barred by limitation
(2.) The case of the plaintiff, in short, is this: Defendant was a money- lender and plaintiff was a dealer in land transactions. Plaintiff had borrowed money from the defendant for purchasing lands and he had taken sale deeds ' in the name of the defendant as security to the loan amounts advanced and that on clearance of loan amount defendant would reconvey the land concerned. In the case of Ext. 66 sale deed also, according to the plaintiff, the same pattern was followed as defendant advanced a sum of Rs. 13,000. 00 (Rupees thirteen thousand only) to the plaintiff for buying the land and so it was incumbent on the defendant to reconvey the property
(3.) As the expression "real owner" used in the case tends to create some confusion, we would prefer to refer to the plaintiff as claimant and the defendant as "the recorded owner" (or ostensible owner). The High court held that the intention when the sale deed was taken, was nothing other than making the defendant owner of the property although it might have been thought that if the plaintiff would pay the amount which defendant had shelled out the property would be reconveyed to the plaintiff;