JUDGMENT :

B.N. Karia, J.

1. Present appellant is the original plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No. 50 of 2014 before the learned Trial Court and has challenged the decree and judgment passed below Exh. 104 against the defendants No. 1 and 7 to 10, in the above said suit vide order dated 22.11.2017 whereby plaint Exh. 1 filed before the Trial Court was rejected by passing an order below Exhibit 104 preferred under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure by defendant no.1.

2. Short facts of the present case may be referred as under:

2.1 As stated, the Appellant is the plaintiff before the trial Court in the suit while respondent no.1 is the defendant No.10 in the suit. The respondents No.2 to 9 were the defendants No. 2 to 9 in the suit. The respondent No.10 to 12, are defendants No.1/1 to 1/3 in the suit, who were impleaded after death of the defendant no.1 namely Mr. Arvindbhai Naranbhai Patel, as his legal heirs. As pe the facts alleged in the suit, in the year 2001, defendants no.1 to 6 offered to sale the property consisting of the land admeasuring 292 sqr meters along with 210 sqr meters super structure, being known 15, Premanjali Society situated in the Final Plot No. 74 of the TPS No. 1/B(Bodakdev) of Revenue Survey No. 262/2 of Bodakdev village of Ahmedabad District for Rs. 16,00,000/- showing that the suit property was of their joint ownership. Thereafter, one agreement for sell was executed by the defendants No.1 to 6 in favour of the plaintiff accepting Rs. 1 lakh as part payment of the suit property in the year 2001. As per the averments made in the plaint, the plaintiff repeatedly requested to defendants No.1 to 6 to execute sale deed during the year 2001 to 2013. That, defendants No.1 to 6 executed sale deed of the suit property on 30th March 2013 by accepting the remaining sale consideration of Rs.15,00,000/- by four different cheques dated 15th April 2013 from the plaintiff. It is further averred in the plaint that on the date of execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, the valuable movable properties of the defendants no. 1 to 6 were lying in the suit property and hence, they requested the plaintiff to give time of 15 to 20 days for handing over physical possession of the suit property so that they may transfer their valuable movable properties to other place. The plaintiff was pleased to allow the defendants No.1 to 6 for vacating and transferring their valuable property and handing over the physical possession to the plaintiff as requested. Thereafter however, frequent request was made by the plaintiff for physical possession of the suit property, but it was not handed over to the plaintiff. Approximately on 4th October 2013, the public warning notice was issued by the advocate on behalf of the defendant no.10 in daily news paper “Sandesh” stating that defendants No. 7 to 8 are the owners of the super structure admeasuring 250 sqr meters of the suit property and they have executed an agreement for sale in favour of the defendant no. 10 and have also handed over the physical possession of the suit property. On the very next day ie, on 5th October 2013, another public warning notice was issued by the defendants No.1 to 6 through their advocate in Sandesh News Paper stating that only land of the suit property was sold to the plaintiff and in the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff, sale of super structure has been written by mistake, and therefore, defendants No. 1 to 6 instructed the plaintiff to give correction in the sale deed and hence, on the same day, the plaintiff executed one notarized indemnity in their favour that they are not responsible for construction of the suit property. As the contents of both the public warning notices were false and fabricated, plaintiff inquired about the suit property and came to know that Regular Civil Suit No. 605 of 2013 was filed by the defendant No.10 against the defendants No.7 to 9 before the learned Principal Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rura