1/27 00 CRA-173.21 & 186.21 (12-10).odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.173 OF 2021

Viraj Estates Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

]

... Applicant

Vs.

Shri Nijjamuddin Rabbani Khatib &

Ors.

]

]

... Respondents

ALONG WITH

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.186 OF 2021

Anvarhusen Mohamadsaheb Khatib

]

... Applicant

Vs.

Shri Nijjamuddin Rabbani Khatib

]

... Respondent

…

Mr. R.D. Soni i/b Ram & Co. for the applicant in CRA No.173

of 2021.

Mr. Haridas R.M. for the applicant in CRA No.186 of 2021.

Mr. Ashok Tajane for respondent No.2.

…

CORAM

: MRS. BHARATI DANGRE, J.

RESERVED ON

: 12^TH OCTOBER, 2021.

PRONOUNCED ON : 23^RD NOVEMBER, 2021.

AJN

JAYARAJAN

ANJAKULATH

NAIR

Digitally signed by

JAYARAJAN

ANJAKULATH NAIR

Date: 2021.11.23

19:09:27 +0530

2/27 00 CRA-173.21 & 186.21 (12-10).odt

ORDER:-

1.

The two Civil Revision Applications challenge the

common order passed below Ex-39 and Ex-61 by the 2^nd Jt. Civil

Judge (Senior Division), Nashik on 20/08/2021 in Special Civil

Suit No.236 of 2020. By the said order, two applications moved

by the two sets of defendants being defendant No.2 and

defendant Nos.36 to 38 filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code

of Civil Procedure (“CPC”), seeking rejection of plaint, came to

be rejected and the suit is directed to proceed further.

The applicants before me are these defendants, who are

aggrieved by the aforesaid order.

2.

Special Civil Suit No.236 of 2020 is instituted by one

Nijamuddin Rabbani Khatib and 14 others against one

Jahidhusain Mohammadsaheb Khatib and other members of

Khatib family being 46 in number and the suit property was set

out in the plaint as the immoveable property vide Survey

No.648/B located in District Nashik vide City Survey No.6861

in Town Planning Scheme No.2 being Final Plot Nos.311 and

311A admeasuring 13776 square meters. The suit property

covered an area of 12600 square meters after excluding an area

of 1176 square meters belonging to Shekhensaheb Khatib and

others. The case of the plaintiffs as set out in the plaint is to the

AJN

3/27 00 CRA-173.21 & 186.21 (12-10).odt

effect that the plaintiffs Nos.14 and 15 and predecessor of other

plaintiffs executed two agreements for sale on 05/05/1994 and

02/09/1993 along with two power of attorneys in favour of one

Rajendra Rasiklal Shah and Chandrashekhar Babulal Shah. The

said duo sold the property on the basis of the agreements to sale

and the power of attorneys in their favour, to defendant Nos.36

to 39 on 17/02/2016. In 2017, the plaintiffs filed an application

before the revenue authorities for recording their names in

revenue record when defendant Nos.36 to 39 raised an objection

and at this point of time, the plaintiffs became aware of the

alleged sale deed.

A suit was, therefore, instituted for partition and separate

possession against the defendants by challenging the sale deed

dated 17/02/2016 as well as the agreements to sale and also the

power of attorney executed in favour of Rajendra Shah and

Chandrashekhar Shah. It was prayed that the sale deed dated

17/02/2016 in favour of defendant Nos.36 to 38 was illegal and

not binding upon the plaintiffs and their share in the property and

a declaration was sought for its cancellation and to effect entries

to that effect in the land record of the Deputy Registrar, Nashik.

Partition was also claimed in respect of the suit property in

favour of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.42 to 46 and it was

sought to be allotted to their share, after obtaining its possession

from Defendant Nos.36 to 39. It was also prayed that defendant

Nos.36 to 39 be restrained from creating any third party interest

b