1. Heard Mr. Kanetkar, learned counsel for the Applicants, and Mr. Barve, learned counsel for the Respondents.

2. By this Revision Application, filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the Applicants are challenging the order dated 2nd May 2014 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Khed, below the application at “Exhibit-43” filed in Regular Civil Suit No. 134 of 2004.

3. The application at “Exhibit-43” was filed by the present Applicants, who are Defendant Nos.1 to 5 before the Trial Court, under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC, for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the Suit is barred by law.

4. In order to appreciate the submissions advanced at bar by learned counsel for both the parties, it would be essential to recite few facts of the case.

Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein had filed the Suit before the Trial Court for partition and separate possession of their share in the suit property on the ground that, these properties are the ancestral joint family properties of the present Applicant No.1, who is the father of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and husband of Respondent No.3. In paragraph No.1 of the plaint, the Respondents have described the suit properties, which consist of the agricultural lands and the house properties. In paragraph No.2 thereof, it is categorically stated that, the suit properties are the ancestral joint family properties of the Applicants and the Respondents herein. It was further stated that, the suit properties were originally owned by the father of the present Applicant No.1, namely, Ramchandra @ Chander, who has died, while in the joint family, on 25th June 1985. After his death, his wife Shevantabai has also died, when the family was joint, on 14th July 2003. During his life-time, Ramchandra was looking after the management of the ancestral joint family properties, being the 'Karta' thereof. Thereafter, Applicant No.1-Vasant was looking after the same. Ramchandra has, apart from Applicant No.1 as his son, Original Defendant Nos.6 and 7 as his daughters. Applicant No.1-Vasant has married with Applicant No.2-Pushpa and also with Respondent No.3-Sindhubai. Out of his wedlock with Applicant No.2-Pushpa, he has two sons and one daughter by name Samadhan, Yogesh and Taee; whereas, out of his marriage with Respondent No.3-Sindhubai, he has two sons by name Gurudas and Bhanudas. According to the Respondents, all of them are still in the joint family and enjoying the ancestral properties of the joint family in common.

5. In paragraph No.3 of the plaint, the Respondents-Plaintiffs had given the genealogy, which is described as above. Paragraph No.4 of the plaint is very relevant. It is stated therein that, Applicant No.1-Vasant had initially married with Applicant No.2-Pushpa; however, as Pushpa did not conceive any child, Applicant No.1-Vasant separated from his wife Pushpa. Then Pushpa went to reside in the house of her parents. Thereafter, Applicant No.1-Vasant performed marriage with Respondent No.3-Sindhubai and started residing with her. Out of the said wedlock, he had Respondent Nos.1 and 2 as his children. Thereafter, Vasant brought back Pushpa and started residing with Pushpa and had Applicant Nos.2 to 4 as his children from Pushpa.

6. In paragraph No.5 of the plaint, it is stated that, thereafter, Vasant started creating third party interest in the suit properties. He has also got a bogus 'Sale-Deed' and 'Gift-Deed', dated 4th January 2001 and 23rd January 2001, respectively, executed of some portion of the suit properties, which are false, void ab initio and, therefore, not binding on their shares. Thus, the Suit was filed by the Respondents-Plaintiffs for the relief of partition of their one half share in the suit properties and also for a declaration that the 'Sale-Deed' dated 4th January 2001 and the 'Gift-Deed' dated 23rd January 2001 are not binding on their shares.

7. The Applicants, who are Defendant Nos.1 to 5 before the Trial Court, have, on their appearance, f