M.R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and decree dated 08.08.2016 passed by the learned 8th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat (hereinafter referred to as "trial Court") in Special Civil Suit No. 26/2014 (hereinafter referred to as "said suit") by which the learned trial Court has dismissed/rejected the said suit preferred by the original plaintiff, the original plaintiffs have preferred the present First Appeal.

2. Facts leading to the present First Appeal in nut-shell are as under:

2.1 That the original plaintiff instituted the said suit in the learned trial Court for a declaration to declare the registered sale deed No. 7209 dated 26.04.2012 and registered sale deed No. 7126 dated 25.04.2012 in favour of the original defendant No. 4 with respect to the suit land bearing Survey No. 44/2 - Block No. 77 and Survey No. 47 - Block No. 83 situated at village Bamroli, Taluka Surat City (Choriyasi) as illegal, null and void, without consideration and also for a further declaration that the original defendant Nos. 1 to 4 have no right, title or interest in the said properties. The original plaintiff also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from transferring, alienating in any manner whatsoever the suit properties and also for a declaration that the defendants have no right to transfer the said properties. The original plaintiff also prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff.

2.2 It was the case on behalf of the original plaintiff that the suit property was under the sole ownership and possession of his great grandfather Mithabhai. That after the death of Mithabhai, the suit property was mutated in the name of Keshabhai Mithabhai and others since 1930. That the said Keshabhai expired on 19.12.1929 and therefore, as per the succession, name of his legal heirs i.e. Suka Kesha, Chhana Kesha, Ganda Kesha and other's name were mutated in the revenue record vide mutation entry No. 94 dated 08.01.1930. That after the death of Chhana Kesha, as per succession rights, name of his legal heirs were mutated and after the death of Suka Kesha, name of his legal heirs i.e. Lakhiben widow of Suka Kesha, Budhiyabhai, Kanchanbhai, Shantaben, Babarbhai were mutated. That after the death of Babarbhai Sukabhai, name of his widow Manjulaben Babarbhai, Dilipbhai Babarbhai, Jayeshbhai Babarbhai, Rajnikant Babarbhai, Lalitaben Babarbhai, Nirmalaben Babarbhai and Chhimubhai Sukhabhai were mutated. That after the death of Chhimubhai Sukhabhai, name of his legal heirs i.e. Kantibhai Chhimubhai, Dhirajbhai Chhimubhai, Mohanbhai Chhimubhai (Plaintiff) and Parvatiben Chhimubhai was mutated and thereby the original plaintiff become the co-owner and co-occupier of the suit properties by succession rights.

2.3 It was the case on behalf of the plaintiff that, since 1930, name of Dullabbhai was nowhere mentioned, entered or mutated in the revenue record and despite the same, after almost 71 years, the mother of the defendant Nos. 1 to 3, Maniben D/o. Dulabhbhai initiated the proceedings before the Deputy Collector, Choriyasi by filing RTS Appeal No. 68 of 2001 contending inter alia that, as per the order of 'Taluka' dated 26.04.1930, mutation entry No. 97 was made in the Pani Patrak but effect of that change was not given in the 'Khed Hakk. It was further the case on behalf of the original plaintiff that the Deputy Collector has without considering the provisions of the Land Revenue Code and also without asking for order of the disputed mutation entry No. 97, arbitrarily and illegally held that Maniben D/o. Dulabhbhai is also having 1/2 share in the suit property of Survey No. 44/2, new Block No. 77 and Survey No. 77 having Block No. 86 and ordered to enter the name of Maniben D/o. Dulabhbhai being legal heir of Dulabhbhai Mitha