B.N.KARIA, J. - (1.) This appeal is filed by the appellants original defendants. They have challenged the judgment and decree dated 19.8.2016 passed by the learned Second Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ankleshwar below Ex.58 in Special Civil Suit No.106 of 2012.
(2.) At the out set, we may refer brief facts. 2. 1 The appellants are the owners of the suit property along with Mr. Arjunsinh Parbatsinh, Mr. Takhatsinh Parbatsinh and Mr. Girishsinh Parbatsinh being an agriculture land Block/Survey No.435, Mouje Pardi Idrish, Taluka : Ankleshwar, Dist. Bharuch admeasuring approximately 50,000 Sq.Mtrs. The said land is undivided between the parties and all are owners and in possession of the land. 2. 2 One Mr. Rameshbhai Devani, Agent of the respondent/plaintiff approached the appellants for sale of disputed land. It was clearly informed to the respondent that the disputed land is undivided land and it was jointly held by all cosharer, therefore initially the appellants were ready to sell the land as Takhatsinh Narpatsinh Sulava is residing separately and he has no relation with other cosharer of the disputed land. 2. 3 Mr. Rameshbhai Devani took responsibility of taking signature of Mr. Takhatsinh and he further assured the appellants that he will take signature of Mr. Takhatsinh on partition papers of the disputed land. It was agreed between the parties that the purchaser shall take responsibility of partition of land, title clearance certificate and purchase of land of cosharer of the land. Mr. Ramesh Devani took the appellants to Surat and where the appellants were asked to put their thumb impression on the ready agreement to sell before one Mr. Khodidas L. Hingu, Notary public on 25.4.2011. The purchaser took responsibility of getting signature of other cosharer of disputed land and agreed to take signature of Mr. Takhatsinh Narpatsinh Sulava later on partition documents. 2. 4 The appellants have taken responsibility of getting signature of Mr. Takhatsinh Narpatsinh Sulava and such disputed contents were being included subsequently behind the back of the appellants. The respondent has given copy of the said agreement to sell to the appellants. The respondent played game with the poor and illiterate people of village and put all the responsibility on them. 2. 5 On 18.6.2012 i.e. almost after 14 months from the date of agreement to sell an advocate of the respondent issued legal notice. From the legal notice the appellants learnt that they have been cheated by the respondent and his agents. It is stated that in the said agreement to sell responsibility was put on the appellants to do partition of land as well as to get title clearance certificate of the disputed land. 2. 6 On 29.6.2012 the appellants responded the legal notice and raised the contentions that the respondent has cheated the appellants. It was also objected that the contents of the agreement to sell has been altered afterwards. 2. 7 Thereafter the respondent has filed the suit for specific performance against the appellants being Special Civil Suit No.106 of 2012 which came to be adjudicated by the trial Court and the trial Court has passed the impugned order dated 5.8.2016 wherein without giving appropriate and cogent reasons the suit came to be allowed and directed the appellants to execute the sale deed in favour of the respondent.
(3.) Heard Mr. Mihir H. Pathak, learned advocate for the appellants and Mr. Dhiraj M. Patel, learned advocate for the respondent.;