Important Point-Even in case of a registered document, to any situations which are not covered under Section 3 of Transfer of Property Act, it is always open for plaintiff to point out as to manner and source of knowledge of transaction.

Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, J.

1. This Revision Petition is filed by original defendant No. 2 to challenge an order dated 26-12-2014 passed by learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar, below application Exh. 33 in Special Civil Suit No. 85 of 2008. Brief facts are that opponent Nos. 1 and 2 are the original plaintiffs as heirs of deceased Joitaram Ranchhoddas Patel. They have filed the said suit for a declaration that they are the owners and in possession of the suit lands by virtue of a registered sale-deed dated 3-2-1981. They have also prayed for a declaration that subsequent sale-deed of the said land dated 2-5-2003 between defendant Nos. 1 and 2 is ab initio void and the same may be cancelled. They have also prayed for permanent injunction against the defendants from transferring, selling or in any manner alienating the suit property. Defendant No. 2 appeared and filed the said application Exh. 33 seeking rejection of the plaint in exercise of powers under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Such application came to be dismissed by the trial Court by impugned order, hence this revision petition.

2. Case of the plaintiffs as stated in the plaint is that said Joitaram Ranchhoddas Patel had purchased an agricultural land bearing Survey No. 69/1, admeasuring 31 hectares and 77 gunthas, of village Sugad, District Gandhinagar, from the original owner Ramanlal Jamnadas Shah (whose heirs are shown as defendant Nos. 1/1 to 1/5) by a registered sale-deed dated 3-2-1981. Since then, the plaintiffs have been enjoying the ownership and the possession of the suit land. However, due to certain reasons, names of the plaintiffs could not be entered in the revenue records and that of Ramanlal Jamnadas Shah continued and after his death,. names of his legal heirs were entered on 5-8-1996. Taking advantage of such situation, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 got the name of defendant No. 2 entered in the revenue records pertaining to the suit land. This was never communicated to the plaintiffs. Recently when the plaintiffs went to the farm house situated at such land, the representative of defendant No. 2 obstructed their entry upon which they verified the revenue records and learned about sale-deed executed between defendant Nos. 1 and 2. They have therefore, filed the suit on 28-3-2008 seeking prayers noted above.

3. Defendant No. 2 filed the said application Exh. 33 and contended that though the suit land was sold by Ramanlal Jamnadas Shah to Patel Joitaram Ranchhoddas on 3-2-1981 since Joitaram Patel was not an agriculturist and did not have agricultural land within radius of 8 kms. from the suit land, his entry in the revenue record was cancelled. Subsequently, Joitaram Ranchhoddas also accepted the return of the sale consideration from Ramanlal Jamnadas Shah and the possession was also handed over back to the original owner. Nearly 26 years later the plaintiffs have filed the suit and in the meantime Joitaram Ranchhoddas also passed away. It was contended that the sale-deed was executed on 3-2-1981 and the present suit which is filed on 28-3-2008 is barred by limitation. The plaintiffs have not indicated in what manner the suit would fall within the period of limitation. Inter alia on such grounds, defendant No. 2 requested the Court to reject the plaint in exercise of powers under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

4. The application Exh. 33 filed by defendant No. 2 came to be dismissed by the impugned order in which the learned Judge observed that the application is to be judged on the basis of averments made in the plaint. The contention of the plaintiffs that upon recently obtaining the copies of revenue records they came to know about the developments, cannot be rejected at this stage without verification. The plaintiffs' contention that the subsequent sale-deed is null and void, and that therefore, any challenge would not be barred by limitation is also required to be examined. The contentions th