ORDER :

1. Present appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short, hereafter referred to as `the Code’) challenging the order dated 31st August, 2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No.157 of 2022 below Exhs.1 and 22.

2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are as under:-

2.1 The plaintiff - appellant filed a suit for specific performance of registered agreement to sell dated 12.10.2011 together with a relief of permanent injunction and declaration against the respondents-original defendants. An agricultural land being Survey No.1293 admeasuring about 1 Hector 03 Are 20 square meters situated at Village Vatva, Taluka Daskroi, District Ahmedabad stood in the name of one Sanaji Devaji and after the death of Sanaji, the suit property was mutated in the names of defendant Nos. 1/1 to 1/7. Sanaji Devaji Thakore was a tenant and he got the ownership rights under Section 84(c) of the The Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short “the Tenancy Act”). On 12.10.2011, defendant Nos.1/1 to 1/7 executed three different documents namely a registered agreement to sell, a registered general power of attorney and a registered specific power of attorney in favour of the plaintiff. The sale price was agreed at Rs. 81.00 Lacs and one of the conditions in the agreement to sell was to get the land converted from new tenure to old tenure and a duration of the agreement to sell was fixed at three months. The defendant No.2 i.e. present respondent No.2 filed an application at Exh. 22 under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code and contended that since the suit property is new tenure land, no suit for specific performance is maintainable and there is a bar of Section 43 of the Tenancy Act.

2.2 Learned advocate for the appellant-original plaintiff submitted said Sanaji Devaji owned the suit property pursuant to the proceedings under Section 84 (c) of The Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 and upon death of Sanaji, the suit property was mutated in the names of defendant Nos. 1/1 to 1/6. The suit land was a new tenure land and by virtue of a registered agreement to sell defendant Nos. 1/1 to 1/6 agreed to sell the suit property to the appellant - original plaintiff. The substantial part of the consideration was paid to defendant Nos.1/1 to 1/6. Upon perusal of the revenue record, it was found that the name of the respondent No.2 i.e. original defendant No.2 was mutated in the revenue record vide entry No.22116. The said entry was rejected by the competent authority. Despite the execution of registered agreement to sell couple with two registered Power of Attorneys, defendant Nos.1/1 to 1/7 initiated attempts to transfer or alienate the suit property in favour of third party and therefore, present suit came to be filed for the reliefs prayed for in the plaint.

3. The application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code was filed by respondent No.2. Learned advocate for the respondent No.2 submitted that the suit is beyond the period of limitation since, the specific performance of agreement to sell dated 12.11.20211 is sought after a period of 11 years. It is also urged by the learned advocate for the respondent No.2 that the suit is barred by provision of Section 43 of the Tenancy Act. It is also submitted that the plaintiff has also averred in the plaint that the suit land is a new tenure land and the documents in support of the plaint also clearly reveals the fact that the suit land is a new tenure land. The clauses of the agreement to sell also reveal that the land is a new tenure land. Plaint does not show any averments that after the execution of the agreement to sell any steps were taken by plaintiff to convert the land from new tenure to old tenure. Even plaintiff has not averred that defendants were informed to initiate steps to convert the land into old tenure. Thus, the suit is hit by the provision of Section 43 of the Tenancy Ac