ORAL ORDER

1. The present First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the read with Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) challenging the judgment and decree passed by 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Jamnagar in Regular Civil Suit No.610 of 2021 on 11-01-2024.

2. Upon joint request and consent of learned advocates for the respective, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

3. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

4. The brief facts of the case are summarized as under;

4.1. The appellants filed a Special Civil Suit No.610 of 2021 against the present respondents before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Jamnagar seeking a relief of declaration, permanent injunction and cancellation of a registered sale deed dated 03.11.2004, which was registered on 09.08.2021. The appellants original-plaintiffs contented in the plaint that a land bearing Revenue Survey No.623 paiky 2 Khata No.5/23 ad- measuring about 1-04-21 Hectare Are square meter was an ancestral land and the vide entry No.2557 dated 17.07.1990, plaintiffs’ names were mutated. Plaintiffs received a notice under Section 135(D) of the Gujarat Revenue Code, whereby plaintiffs came to know that the defendants have sought their names to be mutated in the Revenue Record. Pursuant to a registered sale deed bearing registered vide Registration No.743/2021 dated 09.08.2021. Thereafter, plaintiffs filed the present suit seeking for the reliefs prayed in the plaint.

5. Learned advocate for the plaintiffs-appellants has submitted that a sale deed dated 03.11.2004, was executed practising fraud upon plaintiff No.1 by the defendants; which was registered vide Registration No.3989. The said sale deed was kept in abeyance pursuant to deficit of Stamp Duty and after a period of 17 years, without intimating the plaintiffs, defendants paid the Deficit Stamp Duty on 26.07.2021 and pursuant to the payment of Stamp Duty, the sale deed was registered on 09.08.2021 in the Office of Sub-Registrar-4 at Serial No.743. It is further submitted, plaintiffs have alleged that the sale deed dated 03.11.2004 was executed by practising fraud upon the plaintiffs and further submitted that plaintiffs never sold the suit property in question to the defendants. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court has committed an error by rejecting the plaint. It is further submitted that the provisions contained in the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958 and the provisions contained in the Registration Act, 1908 have not been properly followed at the time of execution of the registered sale deed dated 03.11.2004.

5.1. In support of his contentions, learned advocate for the appellant has placed reliance upon Section 52 of the Registration Act which is hereby reproduced hereinunder;

“52. Duties of registering officers when document presented.-

(l) (a) the day, hour and place of presentation, [the photographs and finger-prints affixed under section 32-A] and the signature of every person presenting a document for registration, shall be endorsed on every such document at the time of presenting it;

(b) a receipt for such document shall be given by the registering officer to the person presenting the same; and (c) subject to the provisions contained in section 62, every document admitted to registration shall without unnecessary delay be copied in the book appropriate therefor according to the order of its admission.

(2) All such books shall be authenticated at such intervals and in such manner as is from time to time prescribed by the Inspector-

General.”

5.2. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the duties which are cast upon the Registering Officer; when the document was presented for registration, the same have not been properly followed and further submitted that neither thumb impression nor photographs of the seller is found on the sale deed dated 03.11.2004. Thus, from the averment made in the plaint, unless and until trial is led, plaint oug