Back
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
J.C. Doshi, J.
Patel Sureshbhai Kanjibhai
and Ors. – Applicants
versus
Yasminabanu Abdul Rahim
and Ors. – Opponents
R/Civil Revision Application No.52 of 2021 with 55 of 2021 with 177 of 2023 with 180 of 2023
Decided on 13.4.2026
Important Points
(1) Rejection of plaint – If a clever drafting creates illusion of a cause of action, it has to be nipped in the bud.
(2) Registered document provides complete account of transaction to any party interested in property.
Act Referred
REGISTRATION ACT : S.17
Headnote
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VII Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint – Suit for declaration, permanent injunction and partition – There is vast difference between suit for partition and suit for administration – Any action under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. does not await application by any party – It is duty of Court to reject plaint if reasons, are found to be existing from a reading of plaint itself and other documents relied upon by plaintiff – If a clever drafting creates illusion of a cause of action, it has to be nipped in the bud – Plaintiff who has constructive notice of sale deed, by clever drafting, pleaded cause of action without specifying any particular date which indicate that when right to sue accrue first time – Principle of constructive notice is clearly applicable to facts of present case – Suit is rather a speculative attempt by plaintiff to disturb title of suit land taking recourse of Courts process – Suit filed by plaintiff is barred by law of limitation – Impugned orders quashed and set aside and plaints rejected. (Paras 19.1, 21, 25, 32, 38, 42 and 46)
(B) Registration Act, 1908 – Section 17 – Registered document – Registered document provides complete account of transaction to any party interested in property – It enables people to find out whether any particular property with which they are concerned, has been subjected to any legal obligation or liability and who is or are person(s) presently having right, title, and interest in property. (Para 43)
Result: Applications allowed and plaints rejected.
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Applicant No. 1:Mr. KB Virvadiya, Advocate
For the Applicant Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5:Mr. Shalin Mehta, Sr. Counsel with Mr. Nishit P Gandhi, Advocate
For the Opponent Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9:Ms. Kruti M Shah, Advocate
JUDGMENT (CAV)
Rule. Learned advocate Ms. Shah appearing for the respondent waives service of rule.
I propose to decide captioned Revision Applications by common judgment, as facts and issue involved in the Revision Applications are analogous.
2. All the Revision Applications are filed under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) against judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court rejecting application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC to reject the plaint in respective suits.
3. In Civil Revision Application No.52 of 2021, subject matter is rejection of application at Exh.22 in Regular Civil Suit No.112 of 2016.
4. In Civil Revision Application No.55 of 2021, subject matter is rejection of application at Exh.14 in Regular Civil Suit No.110 of 2016.
5. In Civil Revision Application No.177 of 2023, subject matter is rejection of application at Exh.22 in Regular Civil Suit No.105 of 2016.
6. In Civil Revision Application No.180 of 2021, subject matter is rejection of application at Exh.10 in Regular Civil Suit No.111 of 2016.
7. With the consent and upon request of learned advocates for the parties, Civil Revision Application No.52 of 2021 is considered as lead matter. Facts are taken from Civil Revision Application No.52 of 2021 which essentially challenge order passed below Exh.22 in Regular civil Suit No.112 of 2016, thereby facts of the case are taken from the pleading of Regular Civil Suit No.112 of 2016.
8. For convenience, the parties are referred as per their original status before the learned Trial Court.
9. Plaintiff - Yasminabanu and others filed Civil Suit for declaration, permanent injunction and partition against defendants mainly claiming relief to set aside and declare that mortgage deed dated 14.03.1969, consequent sale deed dated 04.12.1975, sale deed dated 14.06.2000, sale deed dated 30.10.2007, sale deed dated 29.02.2008, sale deed dated 12.03.2012 and sale deed dated 01.08.2015 executed by the defendants in favour of other defendants are not binding to the plaintiff as those were executed without consent of the plaintiff and defendant no.23/1, who are having share in the suit property. The plaintiffs further prayed to declare that the said sale deeds do not extinguish or affect the rights of the plaintiffs in the suit land. Second relief claimed by the plaintiff is that the suit property be partitioned amongst the legal heirs in accordance with the provisions of Mohammedan Law, by metes and bounds, and peaceful and vacant possession of the share falling to the plaintiffs and defendant No.23/1 be handed over to them. Thirdly, plaintiff prayed for perceptual injunction restraining defendants, their servants and agents from entering into possession of plaintiff’s share in the suit land, particulars of which are stated in para 5 of the plaint.
10. Aforesaid reliefs are claimed by the plaintiff on the basis of averments that plaintiffs are Sunni Muslim and governed by Shariat Act. Plaintiffs claim that they are heirs of Shaikh Mohammad Jamalbhai, who was original owner of the suit property. It is stated that Shaikh Mohammad Jamalbhai was survived by his wife Ajubibi, who died in the year 1958; son Jamalbhai who died on 17.06.1973 and daughter Gulabibi who died on 15.06.1994. The plaintiffs claim that they are direct descendant of deceased Gulabibi daughter of Shaikh Mohammad Jamalbhai. According to plaintiff, Gulabibi was survived by her daughters viz. Subanbibi, who died on 16.07.2008, Rehamatbibi who died on 14.06.1996 and Mariyambibi who died on 31.08.2013. Plaintiff – Yasminabanu daughter of Mariyambibi along with her brothers has filed aforesaid suit. Husband of Mariyambibi expired on 17.09.1986. According to plaintiff, deceased Shaikh Mohammad Jamalbhai was owner and occupier of agricultural land of revenue survey no.70, 71,49,48 and 43 in the outskirts of Patan City precisely in village Sandesrapati (for short ‘suit land’). Promulgation entry No.74 was mutated in
