IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 12 of 2020 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: Sd/-

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA ==========================================================

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed NO

1	Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?	NO
2	To be referred to the Reporter or not ?	YES
3	Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?	NO
4	Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ?	NO

==========================================================

ABHISHEK VIRALBHAI AJMERA Versus LH OF DECD IBRAHIMBHAI VAJIRBHAI PATHAN ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR.ADITYA J PANDYA(6991) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 for the Opponent(s) No. 1,1.1.1,1.1.2,1.1.3 ABATED for the Opponent(s) No. 1.1 DEVANSHI P MALKAN(9307) for the Opponent(s) No. 1.2 NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s) No. 1.3,1.4,1.5,2,3,4 VATSAL M PARIKH(9340) for the Opponent(s) No. 1.2 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA Date : 03/10/2022

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The present revision application emanates from the order dared 22.10.2019 passed by the 17th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara rejecting the application filed by the applicant-original defendant No.4 by invoking the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking rejection of the plaint.

2. Learned advocate Mr.Pandya appearing for the applicant-defendant No.4 has submitted that the entire plaint discloses an illusionary cause of action and has no relation with the prayers sought in the plaint, and hence the plaint is liable to rejected. He has invited attention of this Court to the prayers made in the plaint and has submitted that the same are also ill- conceived since the prayer clause is absolutely silent with regard to sale deed, which has been executed in favour of the defendant No.4 by the defendant Nos.2 and 3. It is further submitted that the entire suit is premised on the statement of fact made that the suit land, has been sold by the father of the plaintiffs along with the defendant No.1 initially by the registered sale deed dated 10.02.2009 to the defendant Nos.2 and 3 is without authority of law. It is submitted that in the plaint, it is averred that the father of the plaintiffs had no authority to sell the said land since the same was an ancestral property.

3. Learned advocate Mr.Pandya has placed reliance on the decision off the Full Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of Imamul Hassan Choudhary Vs. State, AIR 82 PATNA 89 for the proposition of law that as per the Muslim Law, right or interest in the property by the hiers can only be acquired, after the death of the father and during his life time, the major sons do not have any share or interest in the said property and it is absolute authority of the father to deal with such property. He has further submitted that the cause of action and the prayers as mentioned in the plaint appear to be absolutely ill-conceived. It is further submitted that the plaintiffs have already assailed the sale deed dated 10.02.2009 by instituting Special Civil Suit No.322 of 2012, which is still pending and during pendency of the said suit, the present revision application is filed. Thus, he has submitted that the impugned order may be quashed and set aside and the plaint may be ordered to be returned.

4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Malkan appearing for the original plaintiffs has submitted that the order passed by the Court below is required to be sustained since the same is appropriately passed. It is submitted that the plaintiffs have right, title and interest in the said property and their father, during his life time, has executed initially the sale deed dated 10.02.2009, which was without authority of law and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document