VISHNUBHAI BABUBHAI JHAVERI Vs. BHUPENDRA BABUBHAI JHAVERI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dtd. 31/8/2020 passed below Exh-5 and Exh-39 in Special Civil Suit No. 342 of 2015 by learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat whereby the application filed by the plaintiffs- appellants came to be dismissed, the original plaintiffs have preferred this Appeal from Order under Sec. 104 r/ w Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC.

(2.) The brief facts of the suit of the plaintiffs is that the Suit property including lands, were originally belonging to Hasmukhgauri Babubhai Jekishandas and it was in her possession and she transferred it to Bhupendra Babubhai Zaveri, Kirit Babubhai Zaveri, Bhadresh Babubhai Zaveri, Jitendra Babubhai Zaveri, Pankaj Babubhai Zaveri, Vishnukumar Babubhai Zaveri and Hiren Mahendrabhai Zaveri by way of registered sale-deed dated 1018 dtd. 7/7/2006. It is alleged that the property was accepted by the beneficiaries for entire family and all the members have equal shares having one-seventh shares. It is contended that parties are Hindus and they have preemptive right to purchase the shares of other coparcenar if the other coparcenar wants to sell to third party. According to the plaintiffs, though they have preferential right to purchase the share of other co-owners, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 did not make any offer regarding the sale of their undivided share to the plaintiffs and they have sold it i.e. defendant Nos. 1 and 2, their undivided shares in joint family property to defendant Nos. 6 to 11 through registered sale deed No. 9921 dtd. 4/7/2014 against the consideration worth Rs.3,29,54,100.00 and revenue entry was mutated vide entry No. 4528 on 9/9/2014. It is alleged that the plaintiffs along with defendant Nos. 3 and 4 contested the mutation entry by filing RTS (Dispute Case) No. 73 of 2014 which came to be rejected by Mamlatdar on 29/4/2015. It is also contended by the plaintiff that they have preferred an Appeal against that order before the Deputy Collector and the same is pending.

(3.) Heard Ms. K.J.Brahmbhatt, learned advocate for the appellants and Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned advocate for respondent Nos. 5 to 13 and 14. None has appeared for other respondents. Perused the material placed on record and the decisions relied upon by them.