The court dismissed the appeals on the ground that the suits were barred by the law of limitation under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, as the plaintiffs failed to file the suits within the prescribed period of three years from the date of knowledge of the registered Sale Deeds.

JUDGMENT :

A. J. DESAI, J.

1. These two appeals have been filed by the Appellants - original plaintiffs under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Out of these two above referred First Appeals, First Appeal No.335 of 2022 has arisen from the judgment and decree dated 10.1.2022 passed by learned City Civil Judge, Court No.4, Ahmedabad below application Exh.103 in Civil Suit No.1786 of 2005. The said application Exh.103 was filed by the original defendant No.1 - respondent No.1 herein under Order VII, Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') requesting the Court to reject the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by the law of limitation and by the impugned order, the said application came to be allowed and the plaint was ordered to be rejected.

Whereas, First Appeal No.356 of 2022 has arisen from the judgment and decree dated 10.1.2022 passed by the learned City Civil Judge, Court No.4, Ahmedabad below application Exh.107 in Civil Suit No.1785 of 2005. The said application Exh.107 was filed by the original defendant No.1 - respondent No.1 herein under Order VII, Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') requesting the Court to reject the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by the law of limitation and by the impugned judgment and decree, the said application came to be allowed and the plaint was ordered to be rejected.

2. First Appeal No.356 of 2022 could have been decided by learned Single Judge considering the pecuniary jurisdiction whereas First Appeal No.335 of 2002 is required to be decided by the Division Bench. However, since the suit property is the same and the contentions raised by both the parties in the suits as well as applications Exh.103 and 107 are also same and since both the said applications have been decided by the learned Judge, City Civil Court No.4, Ahmedabad on the same day and as per the request made by learned advocates appearing for the respective parties in the present appeals to hear both the appeals together, an order was passed by this Court to list both the First Appeals together. Accordingly, both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

3. The case put forward by the appellant of both the appeals i.e. Legal Heirs of deceased Dr. Kiranbhai Motibhai Patel and Sarojben Kiranbhai Patel widow of deceased Dr. Kiranbhai Motibhai Patel in both the suits are as under :-

3.1 That an immovable property comprising of land bearing Revenue Survey No.58/7/2 bearing Final Plot No.431 paiki of Town Planning Scheme No.21 admeasuring 5261 Sq. Mts. (6292 Sq. Yds.) situated at Chhadavad, Tal. City, Dist. Ahmedabad having a constructed house thereupon belonged to the original plaintiff Dr. Kiran Motibhai Patel (now deceased whose legal heirs have already been brought on record before the learned Trial Court itself), and his two brothers, namely, Dr. Sushrut Motibhai Patel and Hematbhai Motibhai Patel and is a joint property. By a written agreement dated 14.8.1970, it was decided between the three brothers that two brothers i.e. Dr. Sushrut Motibhai Patel and Dr. Kiran Motibhai Patel had equal share in the suit property, whereas it is the case of the appellant - original plaintiff i.e. Sarojben, wife of Kiranbhai Patel before the learned Trial Court that she had become absolute owner of the part of suit property (800 Sq. Yds.) because her father-in-law had bequeathed this part of the property to her.

3.2 It is further the case of the appellants - original plaintiffs that some disputes were going on with regard to the property in question between the brothers i.e. Dr. Kiran Motibhai Patel and Dr. Sushrut Motibhai Patel. However, the same was settled and both of them have decided to sell the entire property in question. It is further the case of the appellant