IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Rejection of plaint – Party claiming rejection of plaint, has to accept that statement made in plaint is correct – Court cannot grant relief what is not claimed by the party.
(2) Mohammedan Law – Succession – Concept of ancestral properties is wholly foreign to principle of Mohammedan Law as Mohammedan Law does not recognize right by birth, but recognizes that a living person has no heirs.
(3) Mohammedan Law – Succession – Mohammedan succession is individual succession – Children in a Mohammedan family are not co-owners.

JUDGMENT (CAV)

The captioned batch of revision arise from the orders passed below Exhibit-33 and Exhibit-44 in Special Civil Suit No.132 of 2021 by the 21st Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara.

1.1 The two captioned Civil Revision Applications arise from the common order dated 11.10.2022, rejecting the application filed by defendant Nos.1 to 4 and defendant Nos.6 to 11 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) for rejection of the plaint.

1.2 The captioned three Appeal from Orders arise from the order dated 02.02.2024 passed below Exhibit-5, partly allowing the application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of ‘the Code’ by the original plaintiff.

1.3 The above referred CRAs and AOs since were tagged, Honourable Chief Justice by order dated 24.03.2025, placed the AOs along with the CRA before the Court having the roster of Civil Revision Applications.

1.4 In the aforesaid premises, the captioned batch of matters are decided by this common order with the consent of learned Senior Counsel/learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their original status before the learned Court below.

3. The brief facts of the case are as under:

3.1 Plaintiff is a daughter of deceased - Valimohammad Kaduji and deceased - Ayesha Valimohammad Kaduji. She filed Special Civil Suit No. 132 of 2021 for relief of administration of the estate of deceased - Valimohammad Kaduji and deceased - Ayeshabibi Valimohammad Kaduji. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 are the brothers of the plaintiff, defendant No.5 are the heirs of the sister of the plaintiff and rest of the defendants are purchaser of the property claimed to be immovable property of deceased - Valimohammad Kaduji and his wife deceased - Ayeshabibi Valimohammad Kaduji.

3.2 The plaintiff, in the alternate relief, claimed compensation of Rs.50 Crores along with interest, as well as relief of permanent injunction. In para 3A of the plaint, plaintiff claimed that the immovable properties prescribed in para 3A (referred to as Lot-3A, for short) of the plaint are either purchased by father Valimohammad Kaduji or father has purchased the same in name of the defendant Nos.1 to 4, i.e. the plaintiffs’ brothers at different intervals, from the gains of the earning and as such, it is self-acquired properties of deceased - Valimohammad Kaduji and his wife.

3.3 It is further averred by the plaintiff in para 3B of the plaint that the defendant Nos.1 to 4, i.e. her brothers, having sold the ancestral properties, have purchased the immovable properties prescribed at para 3B (referred to as Lot-3B, for short).

3.4 Plaintiff came out with a case that when she married, she was too young. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 after the death of the father, deceased - Valimohammad Kaduji, were managing the properties stated in Lot-3A and Lot-3B and were giving false promises to her to give the share. Plaintiff, being the real sister as well as having an inter-se relationship of being the in-laws of each other’s son and daughter, trusted upon the wordings of the defendant Nos.1 to 4. However, defendant Nos.1 to 4, at the different intervals of time, sold the various parcel of land as well as immovable properties without giving any share and were further assuring the plaintiff that the immovable properties in the Akota and Tandalja area since remained in the hands of the defendant Nos.1 to 4, they shall give the share to plaintiff from the immovable properties from the Tandalja area. However, according to plaintiff, later on, the defendant Nos.1 to 4 in connivance with the other defendants, started development of immovable properties at Tandalja in the name of Jumeirah Park and as such, declined to grant any share to the plaintiff, which ultimately led the plaintiff to file the suit seeking various reliefs stated in para 22 of the plaint.

3.5 Firstly, among them is to grant the share as per the Shariat in the imm