JUDGMENT :

1. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by original defendants against the decree and judgment dated 13.9.2021 passed by learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Ankleshwar, Bharuch, in Regular Civil Appeal No.40/2019 and judgment and decree dated 10.6.2019 passed by learned Principal Civil Judge, in Regular Civil Suit No.17 of 2012.

2. The appellants are the original defendants and the respondents herein are original plaintiffs in the suit. For the brevity and convenience, the parties are referred to in this order as per their character assigned to them before learned trial Court.

3. The plaintiff have instituted the Regular Civil Suit no.17 of 2012 before the Principal Civil Judge, Hansot, contending that they have not relinquished their rights of the properties mentioned in Schedule-I and Schedule-II of the plaint and prayed for declaration that they are having 2/3rd share in the joint property and also praying for injunction that the defendants may not sale, transfer, or alienate the property till the time the plaintiffs receive their share of the property. It is the further case of the plaintiff that both the parties are heirs of deceased Karshanbhai Morarbhai. That Karsanbhai Morarbhai Patel expired on 8th May 1968 without executing any will and, therefore, the property standing in the name of the deceased was the joint properties of the parties. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they have never relinquished their rights from the property in question. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that each year the defendant no.1 was used to give some portion of agricultural income to the plaintiffs and in the year 2012, the defendant no.1 denied to give any share to the plaintiffs from the agricultural income of the property and also threatened that the plaintiffs may not visit him again and also stated that the property in question stands in his own name. Being aggrieved by said action of defendant no.1, the plaintiffs have filed the aforesaid suit to claim their share in the property and also for declaration and injunction.

4. The defendants have resisted the suit by filing statement at Exh.10 and submitted that the plaintiffs have relinquished their share from the property situated at Aniyadra vide entry no.1038 and entry no.1776 which was mutated in village record on 2.7.1977. It is also contended by the defendant that he had given the land to defendant no.2 and in this connection entry no.1803 was mutated in village revenue record on 13.12.1998. It is also contended that the entry no.1038 was mutated in the year 1968 in village record and after a period of 44 years, the said entry has been challenged. That entry no.1766 was mutated in the year 1977, which is sought to be challenged after a period of 35 years, whereas entry no.103 which was mutated in the year 1998 is sought to be challenged after period of 14 years and, therefore, there is a gross delay and the suit itself is barred under the law of limitation.

4.1 It was further contended that in view of Section 41 (h) of the Specific Relief Act, any entry can be challenged invoking the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and, unless and until it is done, the validity of the entry cannot be questioned in Civil Court. It was also contended by the defendants that they are in possession of the land situated at village-Aniliyadara, Taluka-Hansot since last four decades and they are owner of the land in question and the suit itself is barred by delay and laches and, therefore, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed.

4.2 It was also contended that the plaintiff has no any right or share in the property situated at Aniyadra Village. It is also contended that while making the revenue entry in the revenue record, at the relevant time, necessary notice was issued to the plaintiff and after recording the statements, as they have relinquished their rights, names of the defendants were entered as sole owner thereof