IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) There is presumption that a registered document has been validly executed – Registration of a document gives notice to public about such registration.
(2) A person cannot after an indefinite period of time rise to challenge everything or every document which has been executed while that person was in a slumber.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

Both these Revision Applications have been filed challenging the order dated passed in Regular Civil Suit No.646 of 2012 pending before the Court of 9th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara (dated 17.7.2015, Exh.16 application Order VII Rule 11) and in Regular Civil Suit No. 756 of 2012 pending before the Court of 9th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara (dated 17.7.2015, Exh.13 application Order VII Rule 11)

2. In view of the fact that the facts of Regular Civil Suit No.756 of 2012 and Regular Civil Suit No.646 of 2012 are similar, the facts of Regular Civil Suit No.756 of 2012 are considered as leading facts and accordingly are incorporated herein below. For the sake of brevity, parties of Regular Civil Suit No.756 of 2012 are referred to as per their original status before the trial Court.

Facts:

3.1 The plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No.756 of 2012 on the ground that suit property belonged to their ancestors and thereafter it belonged to the father of the husband of the plaintiff no.1 and the father of the plaintiff nos.2 to 4. The defendant no.1 is also son of plaintiff no.1. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant no.1 fabricated the Will of the husband of plaintiff no.1 and father of nos.2 to 4 dated 17.6.1968 and revenue Entry No.3253 to that effect was entered in the revenue record on 21.01.1988. The plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No.756 of 2012 challenging Will dated 17.6.1968 of deceased Ramsibhai Nathabhai in favour of defendant nos.2 and 3 to be not binding on the plaintiff, that the registered sale-deed No.8849 dated 06.04.1992 by defendant nos.2 and 3 in favour of defendant nos.4 and 5 being not binding and the registered sale-deed No.2581 dated 12.04.2006 executed by defendant nos.4 to 10 in favour of defendant nos.11 to 20 being not binding and for distribution and possession of the share of the plaintiff.

3.2 By virtue of the Will executed in favour of defendant nos.2 and 3 by Ramsinh Nathabhai Rabari and by virtue of Will, defendant nos.2 and 3 executed sale-deed in favour of defendant nos.4 and 5 on 06.04.1992, which is registered document before the Sub-registrar by Entry No.8849 and thereafter it has been stated that there is other revenue entry with respect to the suit property.

3.3 It is also stated in the plaint that there were other sale-deed dated 12.04.2006, which is executed by defendant nos.4 to 10, in favour of defendant 11 to 20 and, therefore, it has been alleged that as plaintiff is in possession of property and that on 31.05.2012, the defendant tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property the plaintiff filed the suit for relief that the Will executed in favour of defendant nos.2 and 3 is not binding on plaintiff. In the said suit plaintiff also challenged the sale-deed dated 06.04.1992 on 12.04.2006. The defendant appeared in the said suit and filed an application Exh.13 under the provisions of Order VII and Rule 11 of CPC which has been rejected and hence, the present Civil Revision Application.

Submission of Defendant – Petitioner:

4.1 Learned advocate for the defendant has mainly argued that, in the suit that has been filed by the plaintiff, the plaintiff has not challenged the Will, executed by deceased Ramsinh Nathabhai Rabari dated 17.06.1968 and the plaintiff has only stated that the said Will is not binding on plaintiff.

4.2 It has also been argued by learned advocate for the defendant that the plaintiff has also not sought for relief to declare that the plaintiff to be the owner of suit property and the only claim that the plaintiff has raised is challenge of sale-deed, which has been executed in the year 1992. The fact remains that the suit that has been filed by the plaintiff is filed in the year 2012, whereby the plaintiff has stated that the Will executed on 17.06.1968, is not binding on the plaintiff, the fact remains that by mutation entry the fact of the execution of the Will of Ramsinh Nathabhai Rabari was also mutated in the ye