JAKSHIBHAI SAJANBHAI BHARWAD Vs. RAJENDRA NATWARLAL PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur passed below Exhs. 19 and 33 in Special Civil Suit No. 429 of 2012, by which, the learned Judge has rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the original plaintiffs have preferred present First Appeal.

(2.) That the appellants ­ original plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid Special Civil Suit in the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge on 30.06.2012 for declaration to declare that the sale deed executed by the original defendant no.6 in favour of original defendants no. 2 to 5 bearing registration no. 8990 dated 25.6.2008 with respect to lands bearing survey no. 137 situated at village Makarba, Tal: City, Dist. Ahmedabad is illegal, forged and against the interest of the original plaintiffs. It was also further prayed for a declaration that sale deed executed by the plaintiffs in favour of original defendant no.1 dated 16.7.2008 is true sale deed. It was contended on behalf of the original plaintiffs and so averred in the plaint that the suit land in question was new tenure land and therefore, they applied for conversion of the land from new tenure to old tenure and the Collector, Ahmedabad passed an order dated 07.11.2005 determining the premium amount of Rs. 1,93,35,400/. That against the said order, the plaintiffs preferred Revision Application before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, which subsequently came to be withdrawn as the plaintiffs agreed to pay the amount of premium with 12% interest. That the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal passed an order dated 25.2.2008 in favour of the plaintiffs. That the original plaintiffs through original defendants no. 1, made payment from the bank account of the original defendant no.1 on 25.6.2008. It was further averred that on the very day i.e. 25.6.2008, the original defendant no. 6 as their power of attorney executed the sale deed in favour of original defendants no. 2 to 5 for sale consideration of Rs. 51,00,000/ only. Therefore, it was further averred that the said registered sale deed executed by the original defendant no.,6 in favour of original defendant nos. 2 to 5 is null and void. It was further averred that thereafter the plaintiffs executed sale deed in favour of original defendant no.1 on 16.7.2008. It was further averred that the sale deed executed by the original defendant no.6 in favour of original defendant nos. 2 to 5 on the basis of cancelled power of attorney and same was executed behind the back of the original plaintiffs, the same is null and void. It was further averred that the sale deed executed by the plaintiffs in favour of original defendants no. 2 to 5 is true and correct sale deed. It was further averred that the plaintiffs have not received any sale consideration from the defendants nos. 2 to 5. With the aforesaid averments, the plaintiffs prayed for the aforesaid reliefs.

(3.) Present appeal is vehemently opposed by Shri Shital Patel, learned advocate for the original defendants no. 2 to 6 herein. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case and even from the averments in the plaint and the documents produced by the plaintiffs along with the suit, the suit can be said to be barred by law of limitation.