HEIRS OF LILAVATIBEN D/O KESHVLAL W/O RATILAL VYAS vs HEIRS OF DECD. JAGDISHBHAI KESHAVLAL VYAS

C/SA/271/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240450972025)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 271 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 271 of 2025
==========================================================
HEIRS OF LILAVATIBEN D/O KESHVLAL W/O RATILAL VYAS & ANR.
Versus
HEIRS OF DECD. JAGDISHBHAI KESHAVLAL VYAS & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS TRUSHA K PATEL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR MS. KOMAL M
DESAI(17410) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,1.1
MR JINESH KAPADIA, ADVOCATE FOR MR YASH H JOSHI(6495) for the
Respondent(s) No. 8
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY

Date : 26/10/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Ms. Trusha K. Patel, learned senior counsel
assisted by Ms. Komal M. Desai, learned advocate for the
appellants and Mr. Jinesh Kapadia, learned advocate assisted
by by Mr. Yash H. Joshi, learned advocate for the respondent
no.8.
2. Admit the present second appeal on the following
substantial questions of law:-
“Whether the learned First Appellate Court has wrongly
calculated the share of the plaintiff to be 1/8th share of
the suit property, whereas, it should have been 1/5th of
the suit property?”
Page 1 of 7
Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 13:33:56 IST 2026

C/SA/271/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240450972025)
3. From a perusal of the plaint, the pedigree of the parties
as pleaded by the appellant – plaintiff is as under:-
(3) The original owner and occupier of this suit-property
was Shri Keshavlal Shankerlal Vyas and his name has been
running in the revenue records of the land for years. The
said Shri Keshavlal Shankerlal Vyas passed away on
08/10/1991. He died without a will (intestate) and the
pedigree (family tree) of his heirs is as follows:-
Late Keshavlal Shankerlal Vyas
Late Manglaben Keshavlal Vyas
Late Lilavatiben Pushpaben Jasuben Ritaben Late Jagdishbhai
Late Ratilal Gitaben
Nandaniben Jignesh
Mitaben Chandresh
Jayshreeben Belaben
4. From the aforesaid pleading, it is clear that the appellant
namely, Sanatkumar Ratilal Vyas has come into share of
deceased Lilavatiben who was one of the five children of the
plaintiff’s grandfather the deceased Keshavlal Shankerlal Vyas
who died on 08.10.1991. The plaintiff’s mother namely,
Lilavatiben died on 04.02.1963 when the plaintiff was
approximately 04 years old. For the first time, a challenge to
Page 2 of 7
Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 13:33:56 IST 2026

C/SA/271/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240450972025)
the mutation entries by which the three sisters of mother
Lilavatiben namely Pushpaben, Jasuben and Ritaben in favour
of the defendant no.1 – deceased Jagdishbhai Keshavlal Vyas.
Therefore, from the pleadings and the pedigree provided by
the plaintiff in the plaint, it is clear that the share of the
plaintiff, according to the plaintiff himself was to the extent of
th
1/5 of the share of Keshavlal Vyas.
5. In such view of the matter, I find that the learned First
Appellate Court while deciding the entitlement of the plaintiff
th
has incorrectly pegged the share of the plaintiff as 1/8 share
th
of the suit property, whereas, it should be 1/5 share of the
suit property. In-fact, before me Mr. Jinesh Kapadia, learned
advocate concedes that the correct calculation of the share of
th
the plaintiff ought to have been 1/5 share of the suit
property. However, I also find that the learned First Appellate
Court has held as under:-
“13.1 So, considering the fact of the case, learned Trial
Judge has framed issues at Exh.21. Now, looking to issue
No. 1 duty cast upon the plaintiff to prove that his mother
Lilavatiben was daughter of Keshavlal Shankerlal Vyas and
has right in the suit property. Looking to the record,
defendant Nos.1 to 7 did not remained present nor
Page 3 of 7
Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 13:33:56 IST 2026

C/SA/271/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240450972025)
submitted any reply before the Trial Court. Further, the
defendant has submitted his evidence but considering his
evidence, from nowhere he has raised any defence that the
mother of plaintiff is not legal heir of deceased Ratilal
Vyas and as a legal heir of deceased Keshavlal Shankerlal
Vyas she has also right in the suit property as a legal heir
of Keshavlal Shankerlal Vyas. Therefore, learned Trial
Court has rightly decided issue No.1 in the Affirmative.
14. Now, it is required to see that whether defendant
Nos.1 to 4 have entered their name in the revenue record
of the suit land by filing false affidavit. For that,
considering the cross- examination of plaintiff, he has
admitted that after death of his mother he and his father
were residing at their maternal home. He has further
admitted that he cannot say that who went to the revenue
authority for the execution of revenue entry of legal heir of
deceased Keshavlal. He has further stated that he do not
know that his father has got execution of revenue entry.
He has further stated that it is not within his knowledge
that at the time of execution of revenue entry his father
had put his signature in panchkyas. He has further stated
that prior to filing the suit he has not inquired regarding
the entry in revenue record.
14.1 He has further admitted that as after rejection of his
appeal he has not filed any further appeal before any
competent authority. He has denied that entry No.8814
has been executed by consent of his father therefore, he
has not filed any appeal before the Collector. He has also
admitted that his appeal has been dismissed on the basis
Page 4 of 7
Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 13:33:56 IST 2026

C/SA/271/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240450972025)
of limitation. It is not within his knowledge that whether
defendant No.8 is cultivating the suit land since the time
of his grandfather i.e. since last 35 years. He has further
stated that he got revenue record in the year of 2009 and
when he had filed RTS appeal is not within his knowledge.
14.2 He has further stated that the registered sale deed
for survey No.8814/1 and 8814/2 has been executed in the
year of 2007 but he do not know the date of the registered
sale deed. He has further stated that he got knowledge
about the registered sale deed after death of his uncle. He
has further stated that he do not now that whether
Jashuben, Pushpaben and Ritaben have relinquished their
rights in favour of Jagdishbhai in the year of 1993. But
considering the said statement of the plaintiff, it does not
appear to be believable because in plaint itself the plaintiff
has stated that defendant Nos.2 to 4 have relinquished
their right from the disputed land in favour of defendant
No.1. So, on one hand plaintiff has stated in his plaint that
defendant Nos.2 to 4 have relinquished their right in
favour of defendant No. 1 and in his cross-examination, he
has denied that he do not know whether the defendant
Nos.2 to 4 have relinquished their right in favour of
defendant No. 1 and in these circumstances, considering
the said conduct of plaintiff, it appears that plaintiff is
trying to hide something.
15. Now, looking to Exh.54 it is an application filed by
defendant Nos.1 to 4 on 04.12.1991 and they had
relinquished their right from the suit property. Looking to
Exh.55, it appears that the Talati-cum-Mantri had issued
Page 5 of 7
Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 13:33:56 IST 2026

C/SA/271/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240450972025)
notice to Mrs. Manglaben, Pushpaben, Jagdishbhai,
Jashuben and Ritaben for deletion of their names from the
revenue record. Looking to Exh.56 it appears that wife of
Keshavlal i.e. Manglaben, has given consent in connection
to Exh.54 and Exh.55. So, considering the Exh.54 to
Exh.57, it appears that entry in revenue record for the
deletion of names of other legal heirs of deceased
Keshavlal has been made. Those entries are executed in
the year of 1991. Further, considering the date of birth of
plaintiff, it is 22.07.1959, therefore, in the year of 1991
plaintiff might be of 31 to 32 years old. So, at the time of
execution of entry in revenue record, plaintiff had attained
major. Even after attaining age of majority, plaintiff has not
raised any objection before the revenue authority. So, the
revenue entry taken place in the year of 1991 when
plaintiff was major and after death of Keshavlal
Shankerlal, names of his legal heirs i.e. wife of Keshavlal
Shankerlal, son and other daughters of Keshavlal
Shankerlal, are entered in the revenue record.”
6. No ground is made out whatsoever to interfere with
these findings, inasmuch as, both the Courts below have
categorically returned the finding that the plaintiff is entitled
to his share in the suit property. However, as stated herein
above, the extent of the share of the plaintiff is modified and
to that extent, the judgment and order dated 28.04.2005,
particularly, paragraph-5 thereof is to be corrected as if the
th th
share of the plaintiff is to be read as 1/5 instead of 1/8 .
Page 6 of 7
Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 13:33:56 IST 2026

C/SA/271/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240450972025)
Accordingly, the question of law upon which the present
appeal is admitted, is answered in the affirmative in favour of
the appellant. There is, however, as noted elsewhere herein
above, no ground whatsoever to interfere with the rest of the
judgment and order of the learned First Appellate Court.
7. With the aforesaid observations, the present second
appeal is disposed of. The decree be drawn up in terms of the
aforesaid judgment and order.
Consequently, the civil application for stay would not
survive and the same is disposed of.
(D.N.RAY,J)
A. B. VAGHELA
Page 7 of 7
Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 13:33:56 IST 2026