J.B. Pardiwala, J.

This Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is at the instance of the original plaintiff and is directed against the judgment and order dated 23rd March 2018 passed by the 8th Additional District Judge, Surat, in the Regular Civil Appeal No.66 of 2011 arising from the judgment and decree passed by the 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat, dated 20th September 2010 in the Special Civil Suit No.171 of 1996.

2. For the sake of convenience, the appellant herein shall be referred to as the original plaintiff and the respondent herein shall be referred to as the original defendant.

3. The facts giving rise to this Second Appeal may be summarised as under :

4. For better adjudication of the dispute between the parties, the family chart enumerated below will make the picture more clear :

xxxxxxxxxx

5. The plaintiff instituted the Special Civil Suit No.171 of 1996 with respect to the suit property bearing Revenue Survey No.9/2/1, Block No.14/A, situated at village Vedchha, Sub-District Choryasi, District Surat.

6. The plaintiff prayed for the following relief’s in the suit filed by her:

"(1) To partition half of the share of the ownership of the plaintiff and the land from the land bearing Revenue Survey No.9/2/1, Block No.14/A of village Vedchha, Sub-District Choryasi, District Surat, and to order accordingly in favour of the plaintiff.

(2) To declare that the defendant has no right in the aforesaid half of the suit land of the ownership of the plaintiff.

(3) Whatever the benefits and income the defendant has derived till date from the aforesaid suit land, the plaintiff is entitled to half of his share from the mesne profit along with interest.

(4) By way of permanent injunction, the defendant be restrained from carrying on any activity or interfering in the agricultural activities carried on by the plaintiff in half of the land of his ownership bearing Revenue Survey No.9/2/1, Block No.14/A of village Vedchha, Taluka Choryasi, District Surat, and to further restrain the defendant from transferring the said land by way of sale, mortgage, gift, rent, exchange or otherwise and mutating in the ownership right of the plaintiff."

7. Thus, the plaintiff claims to have 50% share in the suit property and she prays for a declaration to that effect and partition.

8. The defendant who happens to be the step brother of the plaintiff, contested the suit by filing his written statement vide Exh.20. In the written statement, the defendant clarified that the plaintiff cannot claim 50% share in the suit property but she has share only to the extent of 1-Acre and 9-Guntha of the suit land. According to the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled only to 1-Acre and 9-Guntha of the suit land by virtue of the family arrangement deed (registered partition deed) dated 9th September 1950 (Exh.113).

9. The defendant pointed out that way back in the year 1950, a family arrangement was entered into in writing duly signed by his father Ramanbhai and Indumatiben, i.e. the mother of the plaintiff. According to the defendant, the plaintiff cannot go behind the family arrangement deed or resile from the same having derived the benefit of the same with regard to the other properties. According to the defendant, the other properties which came to the share of the plaintiff were dealt with by her in accordance with the family arrangement deed and she cannot now raise any dispute with regard to the suit property. It is the case of the defendant that the family arrangement deed, which is a registered document and almost more than 30 years old, cannot be disputed or questioned by the plaintiff in any manner. It is also the case of the defendant that the plaintiff has suppressed material facts and should have been fair enough to disclose about the family partition deed reduced into writing of the year 1950. It is also the case of t