A.G. Uraizee, J.

The appellant-original plaintiff has preferred the present Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to challenge the judgment and order dated 9th April, 2015 passed by learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kutch Bhuj in Special Civil Suit No.111 of 2011 whereby he rejected the aforesaid special civil suit.

2. The appellant herein instituted Special Civil Suit No.111 of 2011 in the Court of learned Principal Civil Judge, Kachch-Bhuj for permanent injunction and declaration and also to set aside the sale deed executed in respect of survey No.36/2, 37, 40, 42. 870/55 as she has got share in the said land being ancestral property, in this suit, she also took out Exhibit-5 application under Order 39 Rule 1(2) for restraining the respondents from transferring the suit property in any manner. The learned trial Judge by the order 4th November 2011 dismissed Exhibit-5 application against which Appeal from Order No.8 of 2012 was preferred before this Court, which was admitted by this Court vide order dated 25th June 2013. The same was also ordered to be heart with this appeal by the learned Single Judge.

3. The appellant also filed application exhibit 22 for amendment of the plaint on 30th March 2012, which was opposed by respondents nos. 10 to 12 by filing their reply. The learned trial judge, after hearing both the sides, partly allowed the amendment application by the order dated 7th October 2013. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has filed Civil Revision Application No.25 of 2014 before this Court, which was converted into Special Civil Application No.5746 of 2014 and the same was also ordered to be heard with this appeal by the learned Single Judge.

4. Thereafter, respondents Nos. 10 to 12 have also filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code for rejection of the plaint. The appellant filed reply to the said application vide exhibit 90. The learned trial Judge heard the application exhibit 60 and after hearing the parties the learned judge allowed the application exhibit 60 filed by respondents nos. 10 to 12 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code and rejected the plaint of the appellant.

5. We have heard Mr. Deepak M. Shah, learned advocate for the appellant, Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned senior advocate assisted by Mr. Mehulsharad Shah, learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 10 to 12, Mr. V.K. Sevak, learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and Mr. Karuna V. Rahevar, learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 5 to 9. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent No.1 despite service of notice of the appeal.

6. At the outset, it needs to be noted respondent No.1 happens to be the father of the appellant while respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are her brother. Respondent Nos. 5 to 9 purchased the suit land from the respondent No.1 and they in tern have sold the suit land to respondent Nos. 10 to 12.

7. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted synopsis of oral arguments which is as under:-

"1. The Appellant-Plaintiff herein above states that for bringing all the true facts to the notice of the Hon'ble Courts about the pending litigations, along with respective document i.e. 1974 and 1980, declaration on oath by Hiraji Parbat, the grandfather of the Plaintiff and others along with other documents produced in the Suit proceeding with respect to establishing the rights into the ancestral properties, where- in Plaintiff, along with her brothers and others, claim their rights of share on partition, being heirs of the family of her father Natha Hirji but obtained from her grand-father HIRJI PARBAT UKEDA HALAI. As Natha Hirji had no authority and/or right to sell the Suit properties not being his self acquired properties, the plaintiff has challenged the sale transactions obtained by fraud etc. by the named Defendants on the grounds mentioned in Suit p