PARESH UPADHYAY

1. Heard learned advocates.

2. Challenge in this Second Appeal is made by the original plaintiffs to the concurrent findings of both the Courts below. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Gandhinagar in Regular Civil Appeal No. 45 of 2005, and thereby confirmed the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2004 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Gandhinagar in Regular Civil Suit No. 03 of 1994, whereby the suit for cancellation of the sale-deed dated 20.04.1982 was dismissed. The Court below has further found that the institution of this suit was abuse of process of law by the plaintiffs, in connivance with defendants No. 3, 4 & 5 who are family members of the plaintiffs themselves. The said connivance was against the original defendant No.1 to extract money over and above the sale consideration of the property, which was sold to him by the above referred registered sale-deed.

3.1 The relevant facts are emerging as under.

3.2 One Ranchhodji died in the year 1978 leaving behind him widow Navuba, five daughters and one son. The daughters are Suryaba, Manjulaben, Prabhatben, Jashuba and Kailashba. The name of the only son is Jiluji.

3.3 After the death of said Ranchhodji, three parcels of his agricultural land were sold to one Becharbhai Adarbhai Patel. The said sale was by executing a registered sale deed dated 20.04.1982.

3.4 The said sale-deed was executed by the widow (named Navuba) and son (named Jiluji) of said Ranchhodji. It is not the case that there was any coercion or misdeed of any nature by the purchaser Becharbhai. The genuineness of the thumb impression of the widow or the signature of the son is also not in dispute. The sale consideration having been received by them is also not in dispute.

3.5 The said-deed dated 20.04.1982 is sought to be declared as illegal by three of the five daughters of the original land owner late Ranchhodji, in these proceedings, on the ground that at the relevant time, they were minor, and their interest are not taken care of.

3.6 Be it noted that, this suit was instituted in the year 1994 (Regular Civil Suit No. 03 of 1994) and even at that time, these sisters were claimed to be minor, and as such the suit was instituted through their mother Navuba in capacity of their guardian and next friend.

3.7 The position of the parties i.e. the plaintiffs and defendants of the suit are very relevant. All the legal heirs of Ranchhodji have strategically positioned themselves, in the suit. Three of the five sisters, through their mother have stood as plaintiffs and the brother and remaining two sisters are joined as defendants No. 3, 4 & 5. The original purchaser of the land in question is shown as defendant No.1 and both his minor sons were shown as defendant No.2 through their father defendant No.1.

3.8 The foundation of the suit is that Navuba – the mother (plaintiff) and her son defendant No.3 had committed illegality in selling the suit property to defendant No.1. The plaintiffs sought declaration from the Trial Court that, the sale-deed dated 20.04.1982 be declared as illegal, null and void. Defendant Nos. 3, 4 & 5 agreed that, let Civil Suit be decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. Defendant No.3 was also a signatory to the said sale-deed.

3.9 It is not that the sisters and mother and brother are fighting inter se. As claimed the plaintiff-sisters were minor at the time of death of the father in the year 1978, were minor in the year 1982 when the agricultural land was sold by mother and brother and they were still minor in the year 1994 when the suit was instituted through mother and strategically showing brother as defendant. It is also not the case that these minor sisters were not taken care of by mother or brother. The funds realised from the sale of some of the estates like the sale-deed in question, were utilized for upbringing of these sisters. It has also come on record that, apart from