3/1 and 3/2 , plaintiff No.
1 to 5 had also filed Civil Suit No.
292 of 1993, in view of the companypromise and settlement.
3 Jankalyan Co operative Group Housing Society present intervener had never independently challenged the order dated 14.8.208 of the trial Court, companysequently the order is binding on defendant No.
5/1, 5/2 and 5/3, respondent number.
Respondent number.
Similar applications were also filed by the appellant Bai Saraswati and respondent No.
5/1, 5/2 and 5/4 challenged the judgment and order dated 14.8.2008 only on 1.3.2010, more than one year and six months later, by filing Special Civil Application number 7087 of 2010.
681/1992 respectfully by the Learned Civil Judge SD of Ahmadabad Rural and remanded the matter to the companyrt, after reviving the interim order dated 28.05.1993 passed in Civil Suit No.
Respondent Nos.
The Declaration cum Indemnity of Title executed on the same day also recognises that Mahalaxmi Society is in full, legal, proper and absolute owner and possessor of the above mentioned lands.
1 Chandrakant Atmaram Patel.
4024 and 4028, dated 18/10/2000 executed by original landlord, Bai Saraswari d o Ashabhai Revandas in favour of Mahalaxmi Co 0p.
2, heirs of Baldevprasad Jamunadas, individually also executed various documents, apart from the documents dated 1.5.2004 and 9.11.2004 executed by plaintiff No.
Bai Saraswati respondent number 6 herein had executed two Sale Deeds dated 27.10.1964 in respect of separate number contiguous parcels of lands in favour of five persons i.e. respondent number.
Plaintiff Nos.
3/1, 3/2 and plaintiff No.
Plaint was signed by respondent No.
Further, it was also pointed out that plaintiff Nos.
Consequently, Special Civil Suit No.
Registered Articles of Agreement executed by them on the same day also referred to further payment of Rs.66,05,527/ .
1/1/A to 1/1/D, did number take any steps to implead themselves as heirs either in Civil Suit No.
Consequently, plaintiff number 1, on his behalf and on behalf of the other plaintiffs, except plaintiff Nos.
Plaintiffs had also agreed to companyperate in obtaining appropriate orders in Special Civil Suit No.
As stated in the said Deeds of Agreement, the ownership right and possession of the said suit property have been received by Mahalaxmi Co op.
5/1, 5/2 and 5/3, respondent number.
2/1, 2/2, plaintiff No.
Further, it is also provided in the said declaration that the plaintiffs had agreed to companyoperate in obtaining appropriate orders from the Court in pending cases, including Special Civil Suit No.
5/1 and 5/2 herein , the plaintiff number 3 are heirs of Manilal Bechardas respondent number.
Chandrakant Atmaram Patel, plaintiff number 1, plaintiff number 2 are the heirs of the deceased Baldevprasad respondent number.
Civil Suit No.
Plaintiff Nos.
1 to 5.
During his lifetime, he had number disputed any of the above mentioned documents or their companytents.
The High Court disposed of those applications by a companymon judgment on 19.12.2011, the legality of which is under challenge in these appeals.
681 of 1992, which was also disposed of on 8.9.2009 accepting the same.
Plaintiff No.
4, i.e. plaintiff Nos.
681 of 1992 was later amended challenging the grant of permission.
1 to 5 purchasers formed a partnership firm in the name of M s Arbuda Corporation on 4.3.1965 to deal with the above mentioned properties and each partner had equal share.
3 Jankalyan Society, however endorsed their objection to the pursis on 31.07.2008.
681 of 1992 only on 1.3.2011 by filing Special Civil Application No.
1 as power of attorney holder for himself and on behalf of the other plaintiffs as well.
Plaintiff No.
681 of 1992, on expiry of the period of limitation under Articles 120 and 121 of the Limitation Act, those suits stood abated qua plaintiff No.
5/1, 5/2 and 5/4 had also executed documents and settlement acknowledging the receipt of payments made by Mahalaxmi Society and also acknowledging that Mahalaxmi Society is the full, legal, proper and absolute owner and possessor of the above mentioned properties.
Registered Deed of Confirmation dated 10.11.2004 executed by them also referred to the payment of Rs.29,72,365/ and the proportionate payment of Rs.5,94,473/ .
Registered Deed of Confirmation dated 10.11.2004 refers to the payment of Rs.29,72,365/ by the Mahalaxmi Society and the proportionate payment of Rs.5,94,473/ .
Plaintiff No.
1 on the strength of the power of attorney, representing plaintiff No.
Declaration cum Indemnity of Title dated 5.1.2005 also acknowledges that Mahalaxmi Society is the full, legal, proper and absolute owner and possessor of the above mentioned lands.
681/1992 was also a suit filed by respondent Nos.
3/1 and 3/2, as already stated, challenged the judgment and order dated 14.8.2008 by filing Special Civil Application number 10884 of 2009, under Articles 226 and 226 of the Constitution of India.
3/1 and 3/2, respondent No.
Respondent Nos.
1, 2/1, 2/2, 4 and 5/1 to 5/4, through their advocate, published a numberice in the local newspaper companyfirming the above mentioned facts and also the execution of the documents, thereby acknowledging that Mahalaxmi Society is the true, full, legal, proper and absolute owner and possessor of the above mentioned properties.
3/1 and 3/2, prepared a pursis dated 7.7.2008, referring to the sale deeds dated 08.06.1992 and 18.10.2000 executed in favour of the Mahalaxmi Society in respect of all the properties in question stating that the plaintiffs have unconditionally given up all the claims raised in the suit and have settled the issues with the Mahalaxmi Society.
1 filed an affidavit on 13.8.2008 stating that the pursis was given in his individual capacity and as the power of attorney holder of plaintiff Nos.
3/1 and 3/2 herein , plaintiff number 4 is Ashabai Patel since deceased and number through Legal Representatives respondent number.
1 Chandrakant Atmaram Patel.
1 for and on behalf of other plaintiffs received an amount of Rs.29,72,326/ made by Mahalaxmi Society by various cheques, evidenced by the Notarized Acknowledgement cum Settlement Receipt dated 1.5.2004.
Declaration cum indemnity of title was also made on 10.11.2004, wherein it was stated that Mahalaxmi Society had the full, legal, proper and absolute owner and possessor of the above mentioned lands.
292 of 1993, in view of the companypromise and settlement.
5/1 and 5/2 , plaintiff number 3 who are heirs of Manilal Patel present respondent Nos.
3, he did number encash the same.
The first plaintiff also executed a declaration cum indemnity of title on 09.11.2004 wherein it was stated that the Mahalaxmi Society was the full, legal, proper and absolute owner and possessor of the properties mentioned therein.
2 since deceased in favour of respondent No.
1/1/A to 1/1/D, the legal heirs of plaintiff number 4, it is seen, did number take any steps to implead themselves as heirs in the two suits, namely, Special Civil Suit No.
The heirs of plaintiff No.
Plaintiff number 2 executed, on 11.11.2004, a Registered Deed of Confirmation acknowledging the payment of Rs.29,72,365/ of the Mahalaxmi Society and proportionate payment of Rs.5,94,473/ .
Civil Suit No.
4413 of 1992 before the High Court against the Mahalaxmi Society and Bai Saraswati and the State of Gujarat challenging the order dated 3.6.1992 passed under Section 20 of the ULC Act and that order was stayed, so also the further proceedings thereto.
As a follow up, the Mahalaxmi Society, paid an amount of Rs.29,72,365/ to the plaintiffs by various cheques and a Notarised Acknowledgement cum Settlement receipt was also issued on 1.5.2004, which is reflected in the registered Deed of Confirmation dated 1.5.2004 executed by Chandrakant Atmaram Patel, the first plaintiff for and on behalf of other plaintiffs on the strength of the power of attorney dated 7.01.1989.
4 Chandrakant Atmaram Patel.
4 has personally, unconditionally and irrevocably without any reservation or restriction whatsoever accepted, companyfirmed, acknowledged and admitted the deed of companyfirmation dated 1.5.2004 executed by plaintiff No.
13875, 13881, 1891, 13873, 13886 and 13896 dated 5/6/92 and All Registered Sale Deed No.
Plaintiff No.
1 5 then filed Special Civil Application No.
4 and plaintiff Nos.
2 in the said deed of companyfirmation, personally, unconditionally and irrevocably without any reservation or restriction whatsoever accepted, companyfirmed, acknowledged and admitted the deed of companyfirmation dated 1.5.2004 executed by plaintiff number 1 on his behalf and on behalf of other plaintiffs.
Registered Article of Agreement dated 11.11.2004 executed by the plaintiff No.2 also refers to a further payment of Rs.66,05,527/ made to the heirs of Baldev Prasad Jamnadas.
1, executed a Registered Deed of Confirmation dated 5.1.2005 acknowledging the payment of Rs.29,72,365/ .
Plaintiff number 1 Chandrakant Atmaram Patel had also executed various documents individually.
Plaintiff number.
3/1 and 3/2 had cancelled the power of attorney only on 3.12.2004, whereas the Deeds of Confirmation were executed prior thereto, and that defendant No.
Housing Society Limited in respect of suit property mentioned by the plaintiff in the suit application of this case and in this regard, Registered Deeds of Agreement jointly and separately.
Following that, Civil Suit No.
4 individually, and after having received the amounts mentioned therein from the appellant Mahalaxmi Society, decided to record the companypromise in both suits, since all the disputes between them were settled and they had acknowledged that Mahalaxmi Society is the full, legal, proper and absolute owner and possessor of the lands in question.
Registered articles of agreement dated 10.11.2004 also refer to a further payment of Rs.66,05,527/ by the Mahalaxmi Society which was received by plaintiff No.
Though, at that stage, proportionate amount was given to plaintiff No.
Defendant No.
Permission sought for under Section 20 of the ULC Act was also granted by the authority on Bai Saraswati for dealing with the properties.
5/1, 5/2, 5/3 and 5/4, in the said deed of companyfirmation has personally, unconditionally an irrevocable without any reservation or restriction whatsoever accepted, companyfirmed, acknowledged and admitted the deed of companyfirmation dated 1.5.2004 executed by plaintiff No.
4 had died on 2.6.2006 and Civil Suit number 292 of 1993 had, as such, abated qua the deceased plaintiff number 4.
Similar applications were also filed by Mahalaxmi Society, Bai Saraswai and respondent No.
The said Registered Deeds of Agreement have been produced, vide separate list, by us.
1 to 5 as plaintiffs then filed Civil Suit No.
On the death of plaintiff No.
2 heirs of Baldevprasad Jamnadas had individually executed a registered Deed of Confirmation on 10.11.2004, referring to the payment of Rs.29,72,365/ and proportionate payment of Rs.5,94,473/ .
The documents also refer to the Deed of Confirmation dated 01.05.2004.
1/1/A to 1/1/D had also number raised any dispute.
1, representing plaintiff number 4.
Above mentioned are the documents executed by plaintiff No.
2 as well.
On 7.1.1989, respondent number.
Registered Articles of Agreement dated 10.11.2004 also refers to further payment of Rs,66,05,527/ being made to plaintiff Nos.
The learned single Judge, in exercise of his powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India quashed the orders dated 14.08.2008 and 08.09.2009 passed in Special Civil Suit No.
Heirs of plaintiff No.
4 Chandrakant Atmaram Patel in respect of the above mentioned properties.
2 since deceased had on 07.01.1989 executed a power of attorney before the Public Notarized Civil Court, Ahmedabad city, in favour of respondent No.
1 Chandrakant Atmaram Patel, for himself and as power of attorney holders for other plaintiffs executed various documents and entered into various transactions.
They had indicated that it was after the execution of all the above said documents and receipt of payments, plaintiff No.
The facts mentioned in the said Registered Deeds of Agreement are proper, true and legal.
1 Chandrakant Patel.
1/1/A to 1/1/D and plaintiff No.
5/1, 5/2, 5/3 and 5/4.
4 gave their replies.
1 Chandrakant Atmaram Patel in the wake of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, prepared a pursis on 7.7.2008, the operative portion of which reads as under By filing following pursis, I, plaintiff declare before the Honble Court that outside companyrt, amicable settlement has been arrived at between me and defendants.
7088 of 2010.
5/1, 5/2 and 5/3, respondent Nos.
He executed a registered Deed of Confirmation dated 10.11.2004, referring to the payment of Rs.29,72,365/ by the Mahalaxmi Society.
Above facts would clearly indicate that plaintiff No.
Plaintiff No.
1 since deceased and respondent No.
Plaintiff Nos.
Plaintiff Nos.
1, 2/2, 2/2, 4 and 5/1 to 5/4 all plaintiffs, except plaintiff No.
Respondent Nos.
On the same day, a Deed of Confirmation was also registered, which also refers to the above mentioned payment made by Mahalaxmi Society to the plaintiffs.
4 had also individually, in addition to the documents dated 1.5.2004 and 19.11.2004 executed by plaintiff No.
5/1 to 5/4 had never objected to the pursis dated 7.7.2008 and hence acquiesced to the order dated 14.8.2008 and are estopped from challenging that order.
216 in favour of Mahalaxmi Society as well.
The same was then presented before the trial Court.
681 of 1992 and Special Civil Suit No.
292 of 1993.
Housing Society Limited.
In the said suit property, I, plaintiff, have numberright, authority or possession.
3/1, 3/2 and plaintiff No.
Ahmedabad Dated 7/7/2008 Sd Chandrakant Atmaram Patel The same was filed before the Court.
The heirs of deceased plaintiff No.
3/1 and 3/2 were also settled during the pendency of these appeals and their objections before the trial Court under Special Civil Application Nos.
3 and plaintiff Nos.
Registered Articles of Agreement dated 11.11.2004 also recognises the further payment of Rs.66,05,527/ .
5/1 to 5/4, heirs of Amrutbhai Patel, had also individually executed various documents.
Since the heirs, who are respondent number.
4 Ashabhai Patel since deceased number through respondent Nos.
292 of 1993.
292 of 1993 against Bai Saraswati and Mahalaxmi Society on 4.5.1993 for a declaration that sale deeds dated 5.6.1992 and 8.6.1992 are illegal and for a permanent injunction restraining Mahalaxmi Society from dealing with the lands.
3/1 and 3/2, respondent number 1 since deceased and respondent number 2 since deceased executed a Power of Attorney in favour of respondent No.
Plaintiff No.
Deed also indicates that plaintiff number 1 personally, unconditionally an irrevocably without any reservation or restriction whatsoever accepted, companyfirmed, acknowledged and admitted the Deed of Confirmation dated 1.5.2004, which was executed by plaintiff number 1 for himself on behalf of other plaintiffs on the strength of the power of attorney dated 7.1.1989.
3/1 and 3/2, respondent No.
In the Declaration cum Indemnity of Title dated 9.11.2004, it has been clearly stated that Mahalaxmi Society is the full, legal, proper and absolute owner and possessor of the above mentioned properties.
3/1 and 3/2 filed objections to the pursis on 31.7.2008.
4 in the various suits.
1/1/A to 1/1/D and plaintiff number 5 are heirs of Amrutlal Patel respondent number.
292/1993 and Special Civil Suit No.
The Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Repeal Act, 1999 for short the ULC Act came into force in 1976.
Cogent reasons have been stated by the companyrt while rejecting their objections and accepting the pursis.
10884 and 11925 of 2005 did number survive.
4 had acknowledged the receipt of payment of an additional amount of Rs.30,05,527/ .
681 of 1992 and Civil Suit No.
Plaintiff Nos.
1, 2, 3 and 5 and their descendants, guardians and heirs.
4 Chandrakant Atmaram Patel, was binding on respondent Nos.
1, 2, 3, 5 and their descendants, guardians and heirs.
4, however, issued a public numberice on 5.12.2004 in the local newspapers Gujarat Samachar and Dainik Bhaskar cancelling the power of attorney dated 7.1.1989 executed in favour of plaintiff No.
681/1992.
681 of 1992 was also disposed of on 8.9.2009.
2/1, 2/2, 2/3 and 7 .
292/1993 on 04.05.1993 against Bai Saraswati and the Mahalaxmi Society for a declaration that the sale deeds dated 05.06.1992 and 08.06.1992 were illegal and also for other companysequent reliefs.
We are number left with the objections raised by the heirs of the deceased plaintiff No.
2/1, 2/2, 2/3 and 7 herein , along with the plaint filed an application for temporary injunction, which was allowed vide order dated 28.5.1993.
2, 4 and 5.
2, 4 and 5 and produced the power of attorney dated 7.1.1989 before the trial companyrt.
Plaintiff Nos.
3/1 and 3/2 and defendant No.
On 1.5.1991, Bai Saraswati executed an Agreement to Sell with possession of the above mentioned properties in favour of the Mahalaxmi Society.
3 through their advocates published a numberice in the local newspapers Sandesh, Gujarat Samachar, Divya Bhaskar companyfirming the above said facts as also the execution of documents.
The trial companyrt vide its order dated 14.8.2008 allowed the pursis Ext.110 and accorded permission to companypound the suit.
Bai Saraswati then executed two sale deeds dated 5.6.1992 and 8.6.1992 in favour of the Mahalaxmi Society in respect of the above mentioned properties, which lead to various disputes between the Mahalaxmi Society, Bai Saraswati and the five purchasers mentioned earlier.
1 executed a Registered Deed of Confirmation on 10.11.2004 which specifically refers to the payment of Rs.29,72,365/ by Mahalaxmi Society.
292/1993.
1 to 5 against the Deputy Collector, the appellant herein and the 6th respondent for an order of permanent injunction on the ground that numberpermission under Section 63 of the Tenancy Act was obtained before executing various sale deeds.
1 to 5 herein purchasers against respondent number 6 Bai Saraswati and the appellant herein Mahalaxmi Co operative Housing Society Ltd. for short Mahalaxmi Society for a declaration that sale deeds dated 5.6.1992 and 8.6.1992 were illegal and also for an order of permanent injunction restraining the Mahalaxmi Society from dealing with the lands and also for other companysequential reliefs.
292 of 1993 and Civil Suit No.
Defendant No.
In that deed also, plaintiff No.
Plaintiff No.
3/1, 3/2 and plaintiff number 4, however, had issued a public numberice dated 05.12.2004 in the local newspapers, cancelling the power of attorney dated 7.1.1989 executed in favour of plaintiff No.
4, so far as this case is companycerned, the suit had abated.
5/1, 5/2 and 5/4 also challenged the judgment and order dated 8.9.2009 in Civil Suit No.
1 Chandrakant Atmaram Patel while executing the various registered documents and issuing Acknowledgement cum Settlement Receipts by which large amounts were received by plaintiff No.
The documents referred to earlier clearly indicate that they had received large amounts from Mahalaxmi Society and the heirs of the deceased plaintiff number 4 did number take any steps to get them recorded in the Civil Suit after the death of the plaintiff No.
Plaintiff Nos.
292/1993 on the basis of a registered Agreement to Sell dated 15.6.1992 and joined as defendant number 3.
4 who later expired on 2.6.2006 had also executed a registered Deed of Confirmation on 5.1.2005, which acknowledged the payment of Rs.29,72,365/ .
Plaintiff Nos.
4 in Special Civil Suit number 681 of 1992 or in Civil Suit No.
M s Arbuda Corporation and the appellant Mahalaxmi Society jointly made an application under Section 20 of the ULC Act seeking permission to execute the sale deed before the Deputy Collector, Ahmadabad.
1 5, as plaintiffs, filed Special Civil Suit number 681 of 1992 against the Deputy Collector, Ahmadabad, Mahalaxmi Society and Bai Saraswati on 31.07.1992 praying for an injunction restraining the grant of permission under Section 63 of the Tenancy Act, which was, however, granted on the same day.
As already stated, respondent Nos.
Declaration cum Indemnity of Title dated 10.11.2004 executed by them acknowledged that the Mahalaxmi Society was the legal and absolute owner and was in possession of the properties.
Declaration cum Indemnity of Title executed on 10.11.2004 also referred to the interest of appellant Mahalaxmi Society.
Mahalaxmi Society, through their Solicitor, on 11.12.2004, issued a public numberice in the local newspaper Sandesh inviting claims objections to the title of Mahalaxmi Society.
He had also referred to the interest of Mahalaxmi Society in the Declaration cum Indemnity of Title executed on the same day.
4 had expired on 2.6.2006.
Plaintiff No.
14034 dated 8/6/92 and Registered Sale Deeds, Sr.
1 Chandrakant Atmaram Patel, on 13.9.2008, filed an affidavit before the Court stating that the pursis was given in his individual capacity and in his capacity of power of attorney holder of plaintiff Nos.
Pursuant to the above mentioned settlement and companypromise, a similar pursis dated 18.9.2008 Ext 172 was also filed in Special Civil Suit No.
11929 of 2009.
4 also challenged the above mentioned order by filing Special Civil Application number 7097 of 2010 and the heirs of the deceased plaintiff number 4 also filed Special Civil Application number 7087 of 2010.
292 of 1993 or in Special Civil Suit No.
4 Chandrakant Atmaram Patel in respect of properties mentioned earlier companyferring authority on him to deal their property for other plaintiffs and the same would be binding on respondent Nos.
2 who are heirs of deceased Baldevprasad present respondent Nos.
681 of 1992 and Civil Suit No.
Registered Articles of Agreement executed on the same day also refers to further payment of Rs.66,05,527/ being made to plaintiff No.
Plaintiff No.
Plaintiff No.
5/1, 5/2, 5/3 and 5/4 heirs of Amrutlal Patel had also individually executed various documents.
1 on the strength of the power of attorney dated 7.1.1989.
Declaration cum Indemnity of Title of the same date would also indicate that Mahalaxmi Society is the full, legal, proper and absolute owner and possessor of the above mentioned lands.
Plaintiff number 4 had also, vide Registered Articles of Agreement, acknowledged the receipt of the additional payment of Rs.30,05,527/ on the same day.
The legal heirs of plaintiff No.
The trial Court, after hearing plaintiff number.
3 claim rested only on an agreement to sell, and companyld number enjoy any right under the Transfer of Property Act and, thereby, allowed the pursis and disposed of the suit Special Civil Suit number 292 of 1993 on 14.8.2008.
5/1 to 5/4.
4 and plaintiff Nos.
5 who are heirs of Amrutlal Patel present respondent Nos.
1 to 5 purchasers formed a partnership firm by name M s Arbuda Corporation and they executed an agreement to sell dated 15.9.1975 in favour of Mahalaxmi Society in respect of the properties above mentioned.
681 of 1992, the details of which have already been stated in the earlier part of this judgment, hence number reiterated.
The power of attorney provided that the same would be binding on respondent number.
Later, M s Arbuda Corporation and Mahalaxmi Society jointly made an application in the year 1976 under Section 20 of the ULC Act.
3/1 and 3/2 also challenged the order dated 8.9.2009 by filing Special Civil Application No.
Plaintiff number 4, after having executed the aforesaid documents in his individual capacity and after receipt of all the payments as per the aforesaid documents from the Mahalaxmi Society expired on 2.6.2006.
Declaration cum Indemnity of Title made on the same day also indicates that Mahalaxmi Society is the full, legal, proper and absolute owner and possessor of the above mentioned lands.
1 since deceased and respondent No.
Respondent number.
3/1 and 3/2, though later, challenged the judgment and order dated 14.8.2008, after more than one year, while pending these appeals, they also settled the matter with Mahalaxmi Society and accepted all the arguments raised by Mahalaxmi Society in this appeals.
One Jankalyan Co operative Housing Society sought intervention in the suit Civil Suit No.
1 on 5.1.2005 had executed documents as the power of attorney holder and also on his individually capacity, plaintiff Nos.
4, they also did number take any steps to get them impleaded as the heirs of plaintiff No.
On 16.12.2004, plaintiff Nos.
In the registered Articles of Agreement dated 5.1.2005, plaintiff No.
Reference was also made to the receipt dated 1.5.2004 and the registered Deed of Confirmation dated 1.5.2004 acknowledging the receipt of Rs.29,72,365/ from the Mahalaxmi Society by plaintiff No.
292 of 1993 was preferred by respondent No.4 Chandrakant Atmaram Patel and respondent number.
Respondent number.
4 and plaintiff Nos.
Plaintiffs, Bai Saraswati and Mahalaxmi Society, in view of the various transactions entered into between various parties and the pending litigations were exploring the possibility of settling all their disputes.
Plaintiff No.
2, plaintiff Nos.
4 and plaintiff Nos.
16/2005.
Plaintiff Nos.
I, plaintiff, admit Registered Sale Deeds, bearing Sr.
1 for himself and on behalf of other plaintiffs on the strength of the power of attorney dated 7.1.1989.
Bai Saraswati on 18.10.2000 executed a sale deed in respect of one remaining survey No.
5/1 and 5/2 also challenged the judgment and order dated 8.9.2009 by filing Special Civil Application number 7088 of 2010.
4, we have already indicated, was duly represented by plaintiff No.
As per said facts, I, plaintiff, unconditionally waive all companytentions raised by us in this suit and by undergoing companyt of the said suit, I companypound the same.
While the above mentioned suits were pending, efforts were made for settling the entire disputes between parties, companysequently, plaintiff No.
Shri J.M. Patel, learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the companytesting respondents, submitted that the High Court has rightly set aside the order dated 14.8.2008 and directed the trial Court to take into companysideration the objections raised by the respondent herein and to re hear Exh.
Bai Saraswati, after getting permission under the ULC Act executed two sale deeds dated 5.6.1992 and 8.6.1992 in favour of Mahalaxmi Society in respect of properties mentioned earlier.
The heirs of the deceased plaintiff number 4 had number taken any steps for setting aside the abetment or to get them substituted on the death of deceased plaintiff No.
5/1, 5/2, 5/3 and 5/4, plaintiff No.
Plaintiff No.
S. Radhakrishnan, J. Leave granted.
3/1, 3/2 and defendant number 3 intervener , came to the companyclusion that plaintiff Nos.
Plaintiff No.
Contesting respondents, therefore, were duly represented in Civil Suit No.
The heirs of plaintiff No.
1 Chandrakant Atmaram Patel, for himself and on behalf of the other plaintiffs, as well as plaintiff number 1 individually, plaintiff No.
Bai Saraswati, later, executed a sale deed dated 18.10.2000 in respect of the remaining survey number 216 in favour of the Mahalaxmi Society.
5/1, 5/2 and 5/4 companyld number have preferred the writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, since the same companyld have resulted in setting aside of the abetment which was companytrary to law in view of Order XXII CPC.
4 and plaintiff Nos.
292 of 1993, companysequently, on the expiry of the period of limitation, the suits stood abated, qua plaintiff No.
These appeals arise out of a companymon judgment rendered by a learned single Judge of the High Court of Gujarat disposing of six special civil applications of which we are companycerned with the appeals preferred against Special Civil Application Nos.
Further, on 9.11.2005, plaintiff Nos.
Further, learned senior companynsel also pointed out that the power of attorney dated 7.1.1989 executed by respondent Nos.
1 individually also, apart from the above mentioned documents, executed various other documents as well, which re enforces and re confirms the above mentioned transactions entered into by Chandrakant Atmaram Patel as power of attorney holder for four other plaintiffs.
4 Chandrakant Atmaram Patel, plaintiff No.
We have found that pursuant to the execution of various documents, referred to hereinbefore, by plaintiff No.
7088 of 2010, 10084 of 2009, 11925 of 2009 and 7087 of 2010.
4 Chandrakant Atmaram Patel.
M s Arbuda Corporation on 15.9.1975 executed an Agreement to Sell in favour of the Mahalaxmi Society in respect of the above mentioned lands.
