M/S UMED REALATORS, A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT SARAFA LANE, GANDHI CHOWK, WANI, DISTRICT YAVATMAL Vs. SMT SHOBHA WD/O MAHADEO DESHPANDE, AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, OCC : NIL, RESIDENT OF MAHALAXMI KUNJA APARTMENT, FLAT NO. 3, RANA PRATAP NAGAR, ARNI ROAD, YAVATMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants in Regular Civil Suit No. 148 of 2012 have filed the present Civil Revision Application as they are aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court rejecting the application moved by them under provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "the Code") for rejection of the plaint.

(2.) The facts relevant for adjudicating the challenges as raised, are that it is the case of the non-applicant nos. 1 to 3/plaintiffs that they are predecessors of one Shri M. N. Deshpande and have received the property which is land admeasuring 7.44 HR in a family partition dated 8.6.1969. Said Shri Deshpande expired on 7.4.1980 leaving behind the plaintiffs and the defendant No. 5. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant No. 5 without having any right or absolute interest in the suit property, executed a sale deed of the same in favour of the defendant No. 2 on 14.5.1987. The plaintiffs got knowledge about the said transaction in Dec. 2009 and Feb. 2011 during the course of mutation proceedings. According to the plaintiffs, the said sale deed was void ab initio and it did not confer any valid title on the defendant No. The transaction was also without obtaining the permission of the Competent Authority under the provisions of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. On that basis, the plaintiffs on 3.10.2012 filed suit for declaration that they are the owners of the suit property and also for a decree for possession. An injunction was also sought seeking to restrain the defendants from changing the nature of the suit property.

(3.) The defendant nos. 1 to 4 filed their Written Statement and opposed the prayers, as made. Besides denying the claim of the plaintiffs, it was pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation. The defendants thereafter filed an application below Exhibit 25 under provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code. Rejection of the plaint was sought on the ground that it did not disclose any cause of action and that from the statements made in the plaint, the suit was barred by the law of limitation. This application was opposed by the plaintiffs by filing reply. The trial Court by its order dated 15.2.2014 rejected the said application by holding that the suit was filed within limitation. Being aggrieved, the defendants have challenged the said order.