1. This Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the C.P.C.') is at the instance of the original plaintiffs and is directed against the judgment and order dated 24th April 2018 passed by the 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur in the Regular Civil Appeal No.78 of 2017 arising from the judgment and decree dated 29th September 2017 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur in the Special Civil Suit No.244 of 2005.

2. For the sake of convenience, the appellants herein shall be referred to as the 'original plaintiffs' and the respondents hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the original defendants'.

3. The case put up by the plaintiffs, in their own words, as pleaded in the memo of the Second Appeal, is as under:

“2.2 The dispute in the suit concerns the land bearing survey No.710, Hisa No.2, admeasuring 14,670 sq. mtrs. situated in village Makarba, Taluka city, District Sub-District Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property'). The original plaintiff, Gangaben Motiji Thakor who had filed the suit initially as sole plaintiff claims one half share in the suit property as the heir of her deceased father Motiji Ajuji Thakor. During the pendency of the suit, Gangaben expired and therefore, her sons have been brought on record as the heirs of the plaintiff.

2.3 The plaintiffs have shown their pedigree as to how their one half share devolves in the suit property. After the death of the father Motiji Ajuji, the original plaintiff Gangaben became the co-owner of one half share along with her brother Ranchhodjibhai. The plaintiff's father Motiji Ajuji expired on 09.01.1944. At the time of the death of the plaintiff's father, Ranchhodji was the sole surviving male member. The Entry No.2350 dated 20.01.1944 was made in the revenue record entering the name of Ranchhodji Thakor. As Ranchhodji was the elder brother and was managing the affairs of the family after the death of the plaintiff's father, the plaintiff had wholly trusted her brother. Ranchhodji was cultivating the subject land. Gangaben was also illiterate. After the marriage she had gone to her maternal house.

2.4 The defendant no.1 with oblique motive to deprive the rights of the original plaintiff Gangaben, got executed two sale deeds, both dated 06.07.1981, for Rs.43,560/- from Ranchhodjibhai, despite knowing the fact that Gangaben had a share in the suit property. On the basis of such sale deeds, the name of the defendant No.1 was mutated in the land revenue record vide Entry Nos.5663 and 5664, both dated 04.09.1981. The plaintiffs have alleged that the defendant No.1 has fraudulently entered into the sale deed with oblique motives to deprive the original plaintiff of her rights. Thus, the sale deeds executed in favour of the defendant No.1 are fraudulent and illegal and in any case does not convey the one half share of the plaintiff, in favour of defendant No.1.

2.5 The defendant No.1 has executed sale deeds in favour of other persons. Subsequently sale transaction have been entered into by various persons. All such persons are arraigned as defendants in the suit. In the suit, the plaintiffs have prayed for a declaration that she has one half share in the suit property. The plaintiffs have also prayed that the sale deeds executed in favour of the defendants are null and void and that the sale deeds are not binding on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have also prayed for a mandatory injunction.

2.6 It is the case of the original plaintiff that when on 28.03.2005 she had gone to her near relative's place at Ambaji for attending a marriage ceremony, she came to know about the fraud committed on her and about the sale deeds executed in favour of the defendant No.1. Thereupon, she had inquiries made in the office of Sub-Registrar as well as City Mamlatdar. She had made a