The Court upheld the rejection of the plaint, establishing that suits challenging registered documents must be filed within the designated limitation period and emphasized that clever drafting cannot salvage a meritless claim.

JUDGMENT :

(J.C. Doshi, J.)

1. This First Appeal under section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure takes exception to the order passed below Exh.10 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gondal, by which, in exercise of power under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC plaint of Special Civil Suit No.66 of 2017 has been rejected.

2. For convenience and brevity parties are referred to as per status before the learned Trial Court.

2.2. Facts of the case are as under :-

2.3. Plaintiff – Jadavbhai Jerambhai Chavda as trustee of Swarminarayan Temple Trust, Junagadh filed Special Civil suit No.66 of 2017 before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gondal (in short ‘the learned Trial Court’) for cancellation of sale deed No.1743 and sale deed No.1744 dated 09.04.1990 with specific relief that sale deeds are not binding to the plaintiff and sought relief to direct defendant to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the disputed land. According to the averments made in the plaint, land bearing survey no.205/1 ad-measuring 19 Acres 14 Gunthas and land bearing survey No.205/2 ad-measuring 0 Acres 26 Gunthas situated at village – Padwala, Taluka – Kotdasangani is subject matter (in short “subject land”). According to the plaintiff, this land were donated by Girasdhars of old princely State to Swarminarayan Temple along with other lands. It is further case of the plaintiff that since then land was in possession of Swarminarayan Temple as owner of subject land. One agriculturist viz. Savsi Amara was doing agricultural work on the land. Necessary revenue entries were mutated in favour of the plaintiff whereby Swarminarayan Temple was shown as occupant along with Savsi Amara. According to plaintiff, subject land was never Girasdar land nor Swaminarayan Temple was Girasdar or Barkhaladar. In short it was case of the plaintiff that Swaminarayan Temple was not Girsadar. Land in question was received by donation and as such it was not Barkhali land. Name of Savsi Amara in the revenue record was shown as person hired to do agricultural work. It was further submitted that promulgation of subject land took place on 14.02.1955. Revenue entry No.31 was mutated. At that time, name of Savsi Amara was mutated as occupier and therefore, possession certificate was issued in favour of Savsi Amara. But this was incorrect promulgation. Since land in question was received by Swaminarayan Temple in donation and it was not Barkhali land, Swaminarayan Temple cannot be considered as Garisdar or Barkhaladar and consequently, there cannot be any tenant for such Garisdar or Bharkhaladar. It is further averred that Revenue Officers have illegally mutated name of legal representatives of Savsi Amara as he was not tenant and therefore proceedings undertaken by the Revenue Officers are illegal and void ab-initio on its face. It is further averred that revenue proceedings do not confer title.

2.4. Basically upon above averments the plaintiff filed the suit challenging legality and valid of registered sale deed no.1743 and no.1744 dated 09.04.1990 executed by legal representative of deceased Savsi Amara.

2.5. Following reliefs were claimed in para 22 by the plaintiff in the plaint. These reliefs are in vernacular language Gujarati but for understanding they are translated in English as follows :-

“(1) Order be passed allowing this suit with cost.

(2) Order be passed declaring that the Registered Deed No.1743 and Registered Deed No.1744 transferring the lands A.19-14 Gu. and A.0-26 Gu. of Survey No.205/1 and Survey No.205/2 are not binding upon the plaintiff and they are inoperative.

(3) Order be passed that the Res