Valid sale deeds can only be challenged through competent court orders; transactions executed in violation of interim injunctions are treated as void.

JUDGMENT :

Nisha M. Thakore, J.

1. The present appeal along with condonation of delay caused in filing First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure is filed by the appellants – original plaintiffs challenging the order dated 29.04.2017 passed by the 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mirzapur, Ahmedabad (Rural) below Exh.14 in Special Civil Suit No.320 of 2014. By the said order, the learned Civil Judge has allowed the aforesaid application preferred by the original defendant nos. 6 to 11 under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Consequently, the suit filed by the appellant herein – original petitioner has not been entertained.

2. In nutshell the case of the original plaintiff as pleaded in the plaint is reproduced hereinunder:

2.1. The dispute relates to plot no.61 admeasuring 9156 sq mtrs in TP Scheme No.212 (Ambali) which was carved out from the original revenue survey no.24/1, block no.56 admeasuring 13254 sq mtrs of village Ambali, Tal: Dascroi, Dist. Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the “suit land”). The suit land originally was of the ownership of respondent nos. 1 to 5 herein – original defendant nos. 1 to 5. The registered agreement to sell dated 3.5.1989 was entered with the original plaintiffs and the effect was given in the revenue record vide mutation entry no.8876.Thereafter, the registered sale deed had also been executed in favour of the original plaintiff on 9.6.1994. It is the case of the plaintiff that possession of the suit land was handed on the date of agreement to sell. Initially, mutation entry was entered in the revenue record giving effect of the registered sale deed which was cancelled in absence of relevant dates, however, the sale deed had remained in force as was never declared cancelled.

2.2. Taking benefit of the aforesaid fact, defendant nos.1 to 5 had threatened to dispossess the original plaintiff whereby, cause of action arose for the original plaintiffs to approach the Court of learned 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mirzapur, Ahmedabad (Rural) which was registered as Regular Civil Suit No.711 of 1996. The original plaintiffs were parties to the aforesaid proceedings who had sought for declaration of their ownership right and for permanent injunction against the present defendant nos. 1 to 5 – original owners. It is the case of the original plaintiffs that the learned Civil Judge had granted injunction vide order dated 2.9.1997 against the present respondent nos. 1 to 5, thereby, directing to maintain status quo till the final disposal of the suit. The aforesaid order of status quo was submitted before the revenue authority, whereby, mutation entry no.2874 dated 6.2.2003 was mutated in the form no.6 in respect of the suit land.

2.3 In Spite of the fact that defendant nos. 1 to 5 were directed to maintain status quo in respect of the suit land which was notified on record, in view of the mutation entry no.2874 dated 6.2.2003 entered in the revenue record, they proceeded to execute the registered sale deed dated 29.09.2003 in favour of the defendant nos. 6 to 10. It is thereafter defendant nos.1 to 5 preferred Regular Civil Suit No.926 of 2003 against the present plaintiffs in the month of December 2003 challenging the registered sale deed dated 09.06.1994 as illegal and void-ab-initio on the ground that the sale deed was entered upon by a forged power of attorney of the original owners. It was also contended that such sale deed was executed in violation of the provision of Section 43 of the Gujarat