JUDGMENT :

J.B. PARDIWALA, J.

1. This second appeal under section 100 of the CPC, 1908 (for short "the CPC") is at the instance of the original plaintiffs and is directed against the judgment and order dated 31st May, 2014 passed by the 11th Addl. District Judge, Rajkot in the Regular Civil Appeal No. 100 of 2011 by which the lower appellate court dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants herein thereby affirming the judgment and decree passed by the 7th Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot dated 19th November, 2011 in the Regular Civil Suit No. 665 of 1994, dismissing the suit filed by the appellants herein for declaration and permanent injunction.

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

3. One important aspect that needs to be noted is that the present second appeal has been filed by the original plaintiffs through their power of attorney holder, namely, Shri Naranbhai Jadavbhai Lalakiya.

4. The case of the plaintiffs:-

4.1. The dispute pertains to the immovable property bearing Survey No. 11 Paiki, situated at village Vavdi, District: Rajkot, admeasuring 8 Acres. One Kesar Sultan Sipai was the owner of the suit property. The plaintiffs claim to be the heirs and legal representatives of late Kesar Sultan Sipai. It is their case that they inherited the suit land and have been carrying on agricultural activity and are in possession of the suit land. Their names came to be mutated in the revenue records vide Entry No. 817 dated 2nd January, 1984.

4.2. The plaintiffs instituted the Regular Civil Suit No. 665/1994 for declaration and permanent injunction as they came to know that the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 had put forward their claim to be the lawful owners of the suit land by virtue of a sale deed executed by the predecessor in title of the plaintiffs dated 25th February, 1965. The plaintiffs came to know that the sale deed was presented for registration after a period of about 11 months, i.e., on 25th January, 1966 in the office of the Sub-Registrar. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the sale deed dated 25th February, 1965, purported to have been executed by the predecessor in title of the plaintiffs in favour of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and which came to be registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar on 25th January, 1966, is sham and bogus. According to the case of the plaintiffs, no such sale deed was ever executed by Kesar Sultan Sipai in favour of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The plaintiffs disputed the contents of the sale deed as well as the valid execution of the same in the suit instituted by them in the Civil Court.

4.3. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that a deed of rectification allegedly executed by late Kesar Sultan Sipai for and on behalf of the plaintiffs is also illegal as the plaintiffs were minor at the relevant point of time. The purported deed of rectification is dated 16th September, 1967. Both these deeds, i.e., the sale deed as well as the rectification deed are on record as exhibits-140 and 141 respectively.

4.4. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that although the sale deed and the rectification deed might have been executed by late Kesar Sultan Sipai in favour of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2, yet, the sale deed never came to be acted upon or implemented. The plaintiffs have been in possession of the suit land all through out. According to the plaintiffs, for the first time, the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 asserted their right, title and interest over the land on 26th April, 1991, i.e., after a period of 26 years from the date of execution of the sale deed.

4.5. It is the case of the plaintiffs that Kesar Sultan Sipai passed away on 17th December, 1983. The names of the plaintiffs came to be mutated in the revenue records vide revenue entry No. 817 dated 2nd January, 1984. For the period between 1963-64 and 1983-84, the name of Kesar Sultan Sipai continued to