Kiran Ramanlal Inamdar vs Gujarat Housing Board on 4 May, 2023
Bench: Honourable Justice Rajendra M. Sareen
R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 104 of 2023
By way of this appeal, the appellant – original plaintiff challenged the judgement and decree passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Surat upholding the judgement and decree dismissing the suit filed by the appellant.
Facts
The appellant – plaintiff was appointed as a Junior Clerk in Gujarat Housing Board, and was allotted residential premises.
The appellant filed a suit against the respondents- original defendants seeking declaration of transfer of ownership rights with respect to the suit premises in his favour and further sought permanent injunction. In the aforesaid suit, upon adducing the evidence, the learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgement and decree passed, the appellant – original plaintiff preferred an appeal before the Principal District Judge, Surat which came to be dismissed by the judgement and decree
The appellant then preferred a second appeal whereby the Court quashed and set aside the judgement and decree passed by the first appellate court and remanded the matter to the trial court to decide the matter afresh and also directed the parties to maintain status-quo with respect to the suit property.
Thereafter, on remand, the matter was heard and the learned 3rd Additional District Judge Surat dismissed the appeal, thereby upholding the judgement and order passed
It is against the aforesaid judgement and decree passed by the first appellate court on remand, that the appellant has preferred the present Second Appeal.
The advocate for the appellant contended that the learned first appellate court overlooked crucial procedures where it failed to consider the proof of the contents of the document presented before it and that a mere exhibition of the documents in Court does not prove the contents
On the other hand, the learned advocate for the respondents submitted that in the entire plaint, it was never the case of the plaintiff that they were not residing in the premises in question, but when the defence was filed by the defendants – Gujarat Housing Board contending that the premises in question was sub-let to a third party, the appellant – plaintiff came out with a case of permissive user who was taking care of the property on behalf of the appellant.
Judgement
The Court, having heard both sides affirmed the statement of the appellant’s advocate and held that the contents of the documents are required to be proved and established and mere exhibition of the document is not valid proof. However, in this case, the appellant himself has agrred that he has parted with the possession of the suit property to the third person as a care taker and said plea of the defendant Board that the appellant had parted with the possession is admitted by him and therefore, the letter addressed by the Estate Officer to the Gujarat Housing Board is not required to be exhibited. The said case of the defendant Board is proved and established on admission of the appellant that he had parted with the possession of the suit property. Therefore, it cannot be said that the finding recorded by the court is erroneous or perverse.
The High Court held that the subordinate courts had rightly decided the issue between the parties in the most accurate perspective and hence dismissed the appeal
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY AMIT ARAVIND
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
