The court found that vague allegations of fraud do not suffice to circumvent established limitation periods, and a registered deed remains binding unless disproven by specific and detailed allegations.

JUDGMENT :

(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN)

1. Captioned appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21.09.2024 (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned judgment") passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Special Civil Suit No. 345 of 2021 (hereinafter referred to as "the suit") whereby the application Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") filed by the defendant nos. 16 to 22 has been allowed, and the plaint came to be rejected. Hence, the present appeal. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status in the suit.

-

2. Mr.Sikander Saiyed, learned Advocate appearing with Mr.S.V. Shah, learned Advocate for the plaintiffs, relying upon the family tree, submitted that the plaintiffs are from the branch of Maganbhai Nathabhai, the son of Nathabhai Jivaniya. Maganbhai Nathabhai had two brothers Somabhai Nathabhai and Bababhai Nathabhai. It is submitted that Maganbhai Nathabhai had five children including the plaintiffs. After the death of Maganbhai Nathabhai in the year 1970, vide entry no. 1281, names of his heirs, including the plaintiffs were posted and the names of the plaintiffs were reflected in the revenue record. The purported registered partition-release deed was executed between Somabhai Nathabhai on one hand and Kanjibhai Keshabhai and others including the plaintiffs on the other. It is by this partition- release deed whereby it is claimed by the defendants that the plaintiffs have relinquished their right; however, the plaintiffs have never signed the so called partition-release deed. The said release deed is a result of collusion by other family members specially defendant nos. 1 to 10 and 23 to 25. It is submitted that everything was done behind the back of the plaintiffs and hence, the plaintiffs were not aware about the so called partition-release deed. The defendants by playing fraud have executed the partition-release deed, and is not binding upon the plaintiffs. It is submitted that it was only in the year 2020, when the plaintiffs visited their village, they were told by the relatives about omission of their names in the revenue record. The plaintiffs, thereafter, procured the documents and it revealed that the names of the plaintiffs have been deleted at the instance of the defendants.

-

2.1 It is further submitted that immediately after the execution of the partition-release deed, the sale deed came to be executed in favour of defendant no. 11 who was a non- agriculturist and could not have purchased the land. Subsequent thereto, two other sale deeds were executed both dated 09.08.1996, one by the branch of Mangalbhai Veerabhai and another by the branch of Somabhai Nathabhai and others in favour of defendant nos. 12 to 15. It is submitted that since the sale deeds were in favour of non-agriculturists, four cancellation deeds came to be executed, all dated 20.05.2003. Neither the execution of sale deeds in favour of defendant no. 11 nor execution of sale deeds in favour of defendant nos. 12 to 15 was within the knowledge of the plaintiffs. Besides, the deeds of cancellation were not known to the plaintiffs. Sale deeds came to be executed in favour of defendant nos. 16 to 19 in the year 2003 and in the year 2017, the defendant nos. 18 and 19 sold their share in favour of defendant nos. 21 and 22. All the sale deeds have been executed behind the back of the plaintiffs. Since the partition-release deed of the year 1981 itself, is executed by committing fraud, subsequent sale deeds would not have any sanctity in the eye of law and is null and void.

-

2.2 It is next submitted that immediately when the plaintiffs came to know about the transactions, the suit is filed which, has been wrongly rejected by the court below. When there is a fraud committed, the suit ought not to have been rejected on the ground of limitation. It is therefore submitted that the appeal deserves consideration.

3. Pe