Case Note & Summary
The present first appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, arises from the judgment and decree dated 25.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Court No. 2, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No. 349 of 2008. The appellants, who are the legal heirs of late Indravadan Nandlal Mehta (original plaintiff No.1), filed the suit seeking a declaration that the respondent (original defendant No.1) had illegally transferred the undivided 1/6th share of the appellants in the suit property, and for a permanent injunction restraining the respondent from transferring or alienating the property. The suit property is a bungalow situated at Bungalow No. 4, Navkunj Kanch Walo Bungalow, Near Law Garden, Udhan Marg, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. The original plaintiff No.1 died during the pendency of the suit, and his legal heirs were brought on record as plaintiff Nos.1.1 to 1.3. Similarly, defendant Nos.2 and 5 died, and their legal heirs were substituted. The trial court, after considering the evidence, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved, the appellants preferred the present appeal. The High Court examined the evidence on record, including the sale deed and the will, and found that the trial court had not properly appreciated the documentary evidence. The court held that the appellants had established their title to the undivided 1/6th share and that the respondent had illegally transferred the same. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the judgment and decree of the trial court were set aside, and the suit was decreed in favor of the appellants with a declaration that the transfer was illegal and a permanent injunction restraining the respondent from dealing with the property.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - First Appeal under Section 96 CPC - Challenge to dismissal of suit for declaration and injunction - The appellants, legal heirs of late Indravadan Nandlal Mehta, filed a suit alleging illegal transfer of their undivided 1/6th share in the suit property by the respondent - The trial court dismissed the suit - On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence and found that the trial court had not properly appreciated the documentary evidence, including the sale deed and the will - Held that the appeal was allowed, the judgment and decree of the trial court were set aside, and the suit was decreed in favor of the appellants (Paras 1-18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the appellants (original plaintiffs) seeking to declare that the respondent had illegally transferred the appellants' undivided 1/6th share in the suit property.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 25.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Court No. 2, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No. 349 of 2008 is set aside. The suit is decreed in favor of the appellants with a declaration that the transfer of the undivided 1/6th share of the appellants in the suit property by the respondent is illegal and void. A permanent injunction is granted restraining the respondent from transferring, alienating, or creating any third-party rights over the suit property.
Law Points
- Section 96 CPC
- Order XLI CPC
- Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908
- Transfer of Property Act
- 1882
- burden of proof
- declaration of title
- permanent injunction
- undivided share
- legal heirs
- joinder of parties
