MOTIBHAI RANCHHODBHAI PATEL Vs. JETHABHAI CHHELABHAI HEIRS OF DECD CHHELABHAI RANCHHODBHAI
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
MOTIBHAI RANCHHODBHAI PATEL
Jethabhai Chhelabhai Heirs Of Decd Chhelabhai Ranchhodbhai
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)The petitioners are brothers being sons of deceased Manekben who was the only daughter of her father deceased Shri Jinabhai Bachubhai of Village Ashi taluka Petlad district Kaira Deceased Manekben is stated to be the only heir of her father. After the death of Manekben the petitioners have become her heirs. Deceased Jinabhai Bachubhai had mortgaged an agricultural field bearing Survey No. 305 in S. Y. 1906 for Rs. 170.00 to Shri Rambhai Ranchhodbhai. After receiving additional amount a further mortgage deed between the same parties and in regard to the same property was entered into on 25-5-1912 for Rs. 264.00. Both these mortgage transactions were possessory mortgages and accordingly the possession of the suit field was handed over to Chhela Ranchhod and Rama Ranchhod. Both of them have expired and the respondents as their heirs are in possession of the suit field as mortgagees.
(2.)The petitioners filed Regular Civil Suit No. 227 of 1969 in the Court of the Civil Judge (J. D.) Petlad for redemption of mortgage and for possession of the suit agricultural field. The respondent-defendants contended in the suit that they became the deemed purchasers of the suit land which contention was accepted by the learned Judge and he dismissed the plaintiffs suit on 20/09/1971 A copy of the said judgment and order is at Annexure sA to the petition.
(3.)Having been dissatisfied and aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order the petitioner preferred an appeal being Tenancy Appeal No. 244 of 1971 in the Court of the District Judge at Kheda and in the said appeal a reference was directed under Sec. 85A to the Mamlatdar and ALT Petlad to decide the question whether the respondents had become the tenants and whether they had become the deemed purchasers. The Mamlatdar and ALT Petlad initiated an inquiry and decided the reference against the respondents. He held by his order dated 30-9-1975 that on consideration of the merits as well as the legal position the respondents could not be held to be tenants and did not become the deemed purchasers of the suitland. A copy of the order of the Mamlatdar and ALT is at Annexure B.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.