The court affirmed that a suit challenging a registered Will and sale deed was barred by limitation, emphasizing that registered documents confer constructive notice.

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE)

1. This appeal is filed at the instance of the original plaintiff – appellant herein, challenging the judgment and order dated 28.12.2016 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Vapi, in Special Civil Suit No.109 of 2014 (New No.330 of 2015), whereby the learned Judge has allowed the application preferred by the original defendants at Exhibit 10, under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure thereby rejecting the plaint on the ground of limitation.

2. The facts in nutshell as transpired on record from the plaint, are summarized as under:

2.1 Various parcels of lands were running in the name of forefathers of the appellant as reflected in Khata Nos.105 and 896. The aforesaid agricultural lands were situated at village: Balitha, Taluka Pardi, District: Valsad. The plaintiff has described suit properties as schedule- A and schedule -B, details of which are reproduced in the tabular form hereunder:

2.2 It is averred in the plaint that the aforesaid agricultural lands were purchased by his grandfather Ganpatrao Kalyanji from its erstwhile owner which is evident from the mutation entries no. 100 and 158. It is submitted that the aforesaid lands were thus exclusively owned by said Ganpatrao as self acquired properties. However, the father of the defendant no.1 Purshottambhai Kalyanji had wrongly under the pretext of family partition had derived in his share and had entered his name in the revenue record on the basis of such partition by mutation entry no. 364 dated 19.11.1946.

2.3 On 10.09.1996, Parshottam Kalyanji got registered a Will for the Schedule A property in favour of the defendant No.1 to 4 and Schedule B property in favour of the defendant Nos.5 and 6. The aforesaid fact is recorded in the form of mutation entry no.4065 dated 13.06.2004. The Will was also registered with the office of Sub-Registrar vide entry No.2318. It is submitted by the plaintiff that because of ill health of the grandfather of plaintiff , in his absence the partition that arrived behind his back was made the basis for transfer of self acquired property in the name of Purshottambhai Kalyanji.

2.4 The plaintiff has further averred that on having acquired knowledge about illegal entry no.4065, he preferred RTS Appeal No.111 of 2008 before the Deputy Collector, challenging the said entry No.4065. The said appeal was allowed by the Deputy Collector, by which the entry No.4065 was canceled. The defendants being aggrieved by the aforesaid order canceling the entry, had preferred Revision before the Collector, being RTS Revision Application No.11 of 2009. By an order dated 18.08.2010, the Collector had dismissed the aforesaid Revision Application of the defendants. It is further averred that the plaintiff had approached the Deputy Collector, Valsad seeking cancellation of illegal WILL by filing RTS Appeal no. 113 of 2011, which was rejected by order dated 26.02.2013, holding that the appropriate remedy lies with the civil court.

2.5 By referring to the aforesaid facts, the plaintiff had contended that the suit properties were and remains to be the self acquired properties of his grandfather Ganpat Kalyanji and by virtue of illegal WILL, no right of ownership is derived by