Not Entitled to get Cancellation of Sale Deed

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - S. 100 - second appeal - plaintiff filed suit for cancellation of sale deed contending that when property was sold by mother and brother of plaintiff, plaintiffs were minor and their interest in the property was not taken care of - on facts, suit filed in collusion with venders of property - Trial Court dismissed suit - held, suit being abuse of process of court plaintiff not entitled to relief claimed - Trial Court was justified in dismissing suit - appeal dismissed. 5.2 This Court further finds that, and it is also the finding of the Court below that, not only the plaintiffs were not entitled for declaration as prayed for, but there was connivance of the plaintiffs with the family members, being defendant Nos. 3,4 & 5, and thereby they had attempted to abuse the process of law. There is also finding to the effect that, the bona­fide purchaser is kept in litigation throughout these decades by one of the family members, since the prices of the property has gone up. The tendency to abuse the process of law needs to be curbed, for which even cost needs to be imposed. While recording so, this Court has kept in view the observations of Honourable the Supreme Court of India in the case of Rakesh Kumar Goel V. U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and others, reported in AIR 2010 SC 2451, which is to the effect that, filing of a petition before the Court of law is not like buying a lottery ticket that if luck favours, might bring a windfall, but would cost no more than the expresses of litigation. This litigation is no exception to what is observed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India as recorded above. Further, this Court has also kept in view the observations of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association vs. Union of India, reported in (2005) 6 SCC 344 which is to the effect that, judicial notice can be taken of the fact that unscrupulous parties take advantage of the fact that either the costs are not awarded or nominal costs are awarded against the unsuccessful party, unfortunately it has become a practice to direct parties to bear their own costs, such a practice also encourages filing of frivolous suits. The dismissal of this Second Appeal in these facts, without imposing costs, would encourage filing of frivolous suits and appeals. Under these circumstances, cost is required to be imposed and the same should not be nominal either. In the facts of this case, the cost is quantified as Rs.25,000/­. GUJARAT HIGH COURT Hon'ble Judges:Paresh Upadhyay, J. Vaghela Suryaba Ranchhodji Versus Becharbhai Adarbhai Patel-decd. SECOND APPEAL No. 194 of 2013 ; J.Date :- JANUARY 08, 2014 Equivalent Citation(s): 2014 (2) GLR 1068 : 2014 JX(Guj) 58,AIR 2014(NOC) 449 GUJ