IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a plaintiff must clearly establish a valid cause of action, including details of inheritance and right to sue, to maintain a suit for joint ownership and partition of ancestral properties. Additionally, the court considered the provisions of the Mohammedan Law regarding inheritance and the limitation period for filing suits.

JUDGMENT :

NISHA M. THAKORE, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the appellants-original plaintiffs under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”), being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 25.07.2013 passed below Exh.26 in Regular Civil Suit No.47 of 2012 by learned Additional Civil Judge, Viramgam.

2. By the said impugned judgment and order, the application preferred by the original defendants vide Exh.26 under Order VII Rule 11 (a) of the Code, is allowed and the suit is ordered to be rejected.

3. In nutshell, the facts as pleaded by the present appellants before the trial court, are summarized as under:

3.1 The original plaintiffs had preferred the aforesaid suit in respect of various parcels of agricultural lands bearing revenue survey nos. 892,893, 894, 903, 904, 910, 911 and 941 (for short, ‘suit properties’) at village : Viramgam, District : Ahmedabad. It was pleaded that the suit properties are ancestral and undivided joint family property of the plaintiffs as well as the defendants. It was pleaded that the aforesaid parcels of lands originally belong to Mr. Kalubhai Pirubhai, who expired on 19.06.1946. He was survived by two sons namely Ibrahimbhai Kalubhai and Pirubhai Kalubhai.

3.2 Ibrahimbhai Kalubhai had a wife named Fatimaben Ibrahimbhai.

The plaintiffs are the descendants of Ibrahimbhai Kalubhai and Fatimaben Ibrahimbhai. Kalubhai Pirubhai’s second son Pirubhai Kalubhai was married to Karamjibai (Karimabai) Mandubai. The defendants are the descendants of Pirubhai Kalubhai and Karamjibai (Karimabai) Mandubhai.

3.3 It is stated in the plaint that Ibrahimbhai Kalubhai has passed away on 10.10.1971 leaving behind his two sons Mohmad Ibrahimbhai and Abubakar Ibrahimbhai. Mohmad Ibrahimbhai expired in 1980 leaving behind plaintiff no. 1/1 to 1/5 as his legal representatives whereas Abubakar Ibrahimbhai expired in 1987 leaving behind plaintiffs no. 2/1 to 2/11 as his heirs and legal representatives. It is further stated that the second son of Kalubhai viz. Pirubhai Kalubhai also passed away in 1980 leaving behind his seven sons. The heirs of deceased Pirubhai Kalubhai have been joined as defendants in the suit. It was further claimed that the suit properties of ownership of Kalubhai were continued in the joint ownership and possession of the plaintiffs and the defendants. It was further contended that behind their back in collusion with revenue officers, in spite of them cultivating the suit lands, the defendants have deleted their names from the revenue record. The plaintiffs became aware about such a fact two months prior to the filing of the suit, for which, the plaintiffs have approached the office of Prant Officer by lodging an appeal against the removal of names from the revenue record.

3.4 It is further contended that the plaintiffs became aware about the intention of the defendants of selling away the suit properties when they came across public notice seeking title clearance of the suit properties as notified in daily newspaper i.e. Gujarat Samachar dated 08.01.2012 and Sandesh Newspaper dated 12.01.2012. It is further stated that the objections had been raised by the plaintiffs through their lawyer on 11.01.2012. It is further submitted that since the price of the lands have raised/increased, the defendants have tried to destroy their rights in suit properties by taking shelter of bogus revenue records, in spite of the fact that the suit properties are of joint ownership.

3.5 With such circumstances, it is pleaded that the cause of action has arisen for the plaintiffs to approach the court, when the defendants had responded by giving vague reply on 20.01.2012 denying their right in the suit properties by contending that the said properties belong to their mother, which was bequeathed through their grandmother. By which the plaintiffs claimed to have derived knowledge about their names being deleted from the revenue records, and the defendants trying to dispose of the suit properties incl