JUDGMENT

Vinay Joshi , J. - The applicants who were defendant Nos. 1 to 7 in R.C.S. No. 104 of 2021 have called in question the impugned common order dated 15.07.2021 passed by the trial Court below Exhs. 17 and 23. By way of amendment, the applicants have also questioned the correctness of the subsequent related orders dated 18.08.2021 passed at Exh. 34 and 37. Precisely the applicants (defendants) have objected to the maintainability of the suit on various counts and thereby urged to the trial Court for rejection of plaint in terms of order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'C.P.C.'). The plaint is sought to be rejected primarily on the ground of under valuation, barred by limitation and for want of cause of action.

2. In order to understand the controversy, it is necessary to go through the plaint, since it is settled law that for the purposes of Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C., the pleadings of the plaint are the only relevant factor for consideration.

3. The house property bearing CTS No. 3220, situated within the limits of Dhule Municipal Corporation, was initially owned by one Bhagwan Chaudhari. In partition, the said property was allotted to the share of his son Shankar Bhagwan Chaudhari, who died in the year 1983. Shankar was survived by his wife Shakuntala, three sons namely Ramesh, Suresh, Rajesh and three daughters. The suit property was transferred by Shankar in the name of his wife Shakuntala. Rather the transfer was effected by way of carrying necessary mutation entries. The plaintiffs are the legal heirs of one of the son of Shankar namely Rajesh, who died in the year 2006. It is the Respondents (plaintiffs) case that they being the legal heirs of Shankar through Rajesh, they have share in the suit property owned by Shankar. according to the plaintiffs, the widow of Shankar, namely Shakuntala, had no exclusive rights, however, by joining hands with her other two sons, Ramesh and Suresh, she illegally alienated the suit property on 03.07.2013, under the registered sale deed jointly in favour of anandrao (predecessor of defendant Nos. 1 & 2) and defendant Nos. 3 & 4.

4. It is plaintiffs case that they are in possession of back side western portion of the suit house property. Since they had a share in the suit property, they claimed declaration that the sale deed dated 03.07.2013 is not binding on them. Moreover, defendants have obstructed the plaintiffs peaceful possession over the suit property on 26.04.2021, therefore, perpetual injunction has been claimed.

5. During the pendency of the suit, two sets of defendants have moved applications Exh. 17 and 23 for rejection of plaint, in terms of order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, vide application Exh. 17, have objected the maintainability of the suit on the count of bar of law of limitation in terms of order VII Rule 11 (d) of C.PC. and on the count of improper valuation of suit, in terms of order VII Rule 11 (d) of C.P.C. Similar grievance was raised by defendant Nos. 3 to 7, vide application Exh. 23. In addition to that they have stated that the plaint does not discloses the cause of action. additionally it was contended that the execution of sale deed dated 03.07.2013 was well within the knowledge of the plaintiffs, therefore, the suit was false and vexatious.

6. Both applications were resisted by the plaintiffs vide reply in resistance. The trial Court heard both applications together and vide impugned common order dated 15.07.2021 pleased to reject the urge for rejection of plaint. The trial Court held that, so far as the prayer of declaration is concerned, it is a matter of merit, which cannot be adjudicated at this stage. However, it is observed that the suit for simplicitor injunction based on possession is well within the limitation. It is observed that since the plaint cannot be rejected in part, the prayer for rejection on the said count is not tenable. However, as regards to under valuation of suit, the trial Court recorded