JUDGMENT :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1. ADMIT. Learned advocates Mr.Rutvij Oza and Mr.Umang Vyas waives service of notice of admission on behalf of respondent nos.4 to 8 and respondent no.9 respectively.

2. Present First Appeal emanates from the judgment and decree dated 11/05/2017 passed by the learned 15" Additional Civil Judge, Vadodara, whereby learned trial Court has allowed Exh.-26 application under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code filed by the original Defendant Nos. 4 to 9 and thereby has rejected the suit filed by the present appellants-original plaintiffs being Special Suit no. 129 of 2015.

3. The short facts of the case are that the aforesaid suit was filed by the appellants-plaintiffs against the respondents-defendants for cancellation of Sale Deed and other allied reliefs by alleging that defendants nos. 1 to 3 has wrongly mutated entries of their names in revenue records of land admeasuring 12343 Sq. Meters, bearing Revenue Survey No. 976. It is stated that respondent nos.1 and 2 are the relatives of appellant no.1. It is also stated that in the year 2002 respondent nos. 1 and 2 were in financial crisis and because of that being relatives, the respondent nos.1 and 2 has requested appellant no.1 to transfer the said piece of land in their favour. It is stated that thereafter, they have prepared draft Sale Deed and at that time the appellants came to know that in the said Sale Deed name of respondent no.3 was also there, and being relatives of respondent nos. 1 and 2, the appellants have executed one Sale Deed dated 19/10/2002 without any consideration.

3.1 It is the case of the appellant that the respondent nos. 1 to 3 have filed one application to mutate their names in the revenue record on the basis of the above mentioned Sale Deed and said application is registered as katchcha entry no.5757 in the record and the said application is filed without informing the applicant. It is further stated that, as soon as the appellants came to know about said facts, immediately he has approached to the respondent nos. 1 to 3 and inquired about the same. It is alleged that in response to the same, the respondents have informed that the bank is demanding their names in the revenue records, therefore, they have filed an application to mutate their names in the revenue records, but at that point of time, respondent nos.1 to 3 had given assurance to the appellants that they will not create any third party rights over the said piece of land/property. Thus, the appellants have not initiated any legal action against the respondents.

4. Mr.Tejas Trivedi, learned advocate appearing for the appellants has submitted that learned trial Court failed to appreciate that Respondent no.3 was not an agriculturist when the sale deed was executed, i.e. on 19/10/2002. Further, as respondent no.3 was not agriculturist, therefore, the mutation entry no. 5757 mutating the names of Respondent nos. 1 to 3 was rejected, hence, the execution of the sale deed itself has become void ab initio. It is submitted that respondent nos.1 to 3 have misguided the Court. He has submitted that in fact mischief and cheating has been done by the respondent nos.1 and 3 and specific averment in this regard has been made by the plaintiff in this regard in the Court below, however, without appreciating the same, Court below rejected the plaint by accepting the application filed by the respondents under the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. Thus, it is submitted that the impugned order may be set aside.

5. Per contra, learned advocate, Mr.Rutvij Oza appearing for respondent nos.4 to 8 and Mr.Umang Vyas appearing for respondent no.9 have submitted that in fact the order does not require any interference as the same is properly passed. It is submitted that in fact by taking false contention with regard to the fraud having been committed by the plaintiff,