TMI Blog1999 (3) TMI 654X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .1997 restraining interference with the appellant's possession in respect of 8138 sq.meters in Survey No.224 and 246 of Akota, Baroda District. On appeal by defendants 15 to 19, the High Court of Gujarat by orders dated 23.2.1998 in A.O. 409 of 1997, allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the District Court and directed that meanwhile, the status quo on the spot be maintained. The defendants 1 to 14 support the plaintiff. It appears that the defendants 1 to 14 are the legal heirs of the owner, one Gulam Husain Momin who died on 12.5.1971. The plaintiff claims that the said owners executed an (Unregistered) agreement of sale dated 14.10.1980 in his favour and received ₹ 25,000 on that day and later received various amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssession to the plaintiff and even on date of suit, 15.6.96, the plaintiff was in possession. These were broadly, the rival contentions. In the interlocutory application filed by the plaintiff, the trial Court held that the land being new tenure land, the agreements entered into by the owners in favour of the plaintiff on 14.10.1980 and 6.4.1996, even if true, were void as the requisite permission of the competent authority was not obtained. For the same reason, the agreement dated 16.7.1991 by defendants 15 and 28 in favour of defendants 15 to 20, even if true, and sale-deeds dated 17.4.1996 by defendants 15 and 28 in favour of defendants 15 to 19 were also void. However, on the question of possession, the trial Court relied upon the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 90 the date of compromise and there was, according to the High Court, no inconsistency with the case of defendants 15 to 19 of possession being given to them under the agreement dated 16.7.1991. Further, the finding of the trial Court that the property was new tenure was challenged even by the plaintiff by filing A.O. 476 of 1997. The High Court said that `this also makes the factual foundation of the trial Court's order erroneous'. For the above reasons, the High Court set aside the order of the trial Court and remitted the matter for fresh decision. It is against the above order that the plaintiff has preferred this appeal. The point for consideration is whether the order of the High Court in remitting the matter to the trial C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion granted by the trial Court should be confirmed or not. We are, therefore, not remitting the matter to the High Court because a further remand would lead to delay and perhaps one more special leave petition to this Court. The facts set out earlier show that the plaintiff has relied upon an agreement of sale dated 14.10.1980 and according to the plaintiff the agreement of sale stipulated a rate of ₹ 1.85 per sq.meter and the plaintiff has paid a sum of ₹ 5,75,000 and the said agreement was modified on 6.4.1996 fixing the rate at ₹ 44.85 per sq.meter and it is said one more lakh of rupees were paid thereafter, in all, ₹ 7 lakhs and possession receipt was issued. The owners, defendants 1 to 14, supported the plai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reement between the owners and the defendants 15 to 19 dated 16.7.1991 and inspite of the possession receipt in favour of defendants 15 and 28. There is some force in the contention of the appellant before us that even if the Compromise in Suit 1384/88 dated 26.4.1990 was recorded on 14.8.92, the defendants 20 to 25, who accepted plaintiff's possession on 26.4.90 would not have failed to bring it to the notice of the Court on 14.8.1992 when the compromise was recorded, if the plaintiff was not in possession. The High Court did not even refer to the case of the plaintiff regarding the agreement dated 14.10.1980 said to have been executed by the defendants 1 to 14 in favour of the plaintiff initially and the various payments upto ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ur of the plaintiff or defendants 15 and 28, or the validity of the sale deed executed by defendants 15 and 28, we are of the view that the trial Court was right in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case. The trial Court has given several reasons for the grant of temporary injunction and, in our view, the two reasons given by the High Court were, on the facts, not sufficient to warrant a remand. It is, however, made clear that the findings relating to the rights of the parties, the title to the property or as to possession as given by the trial Court and as accepted by us are all tentative and will be subject to findings that may be arrived at by the trial Court in the suit after the evidence is led. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
