IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 352 of 2020 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No NO ==========================================================

MULCHANDBHAI ISHWARBHAI PATEL & ORS.

Versus GAUTTAMBHAI BABARBHAI PATEL & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MR APURVA R KAPADIA(5012) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,2.1,2.2,2.3,3,4 DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES for the Defendant(s) No. 1 MR AB MUNSHI(1238) for the Defendant(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER Date : 19/11/2025

ORAL JUDGMENT

1 The present appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, challenging the order passed below Exhibit 18 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur, in Special Civil Suit No.160 of 2015, whereby the application filed by the defendants under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint came to be allowed, resulting in the dismissal of the suit.

2 It is the case of the plaintiffs–appellants before the learned trial Court that they are the owners of the property situated at Village Odd, being Survey No.293, admeasuring 1-74-02 H.Are-Sq.Mtrs. (hereinafter referred to as “the suit property”). It is alleged that on 14.06.2011, a settlement was arrived at between the plaintiffs’ son and his in-laws (vehvai), pursuant to which the suit property came to be sold by execution of a sale deed for a consideration of Rs.20,00,000/-, which was registered as Sale Deed No.12717. The plaintiffs contend that though the sale deed was executed and registered, the entire sale consideration was returned in cash to the defendant, and therefore, the sale deed is illegal and void ab initio.

2.1 It is further contended that the defendant filed a summary suit against the plaintiffs’ son for recovery of the amount and also lodged an FIR before the Crime Branch at Ahmedabad alleging breach of the settlement. In view of these actions, the plaintiffs assert that a cause of action arose to institute the present suit seeking cancellation of the sale deed executed on 07.10.2011, along with a prayer for a declaration of ownership of the suit property and a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from transferring the property to any third party. The suit came to be filed on

19.03.2015.

2.2 During the pendency of the suit, the defendant filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation and the application filed below Exhibit 18, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit. The learned trial Court, upon consideration, allowed the said application and dismissed the suit, which is now the subject matter of challenge in the present appeal.

3 Heard the learned advocate Mr.Apurva Kapadia for the appellant and the learned advocate Mr.Munshi for the defendant.

4 Learned advocate Mr. Kapadiya for the appellants submits that the learned trial Court has committed an error in allowing the application filed under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure without considering the fact that the plaint contains multiple reliefs, and even if one of the reliefs is barred by limitation, the remaining reliefs are still required to be adjudicated on merits.

4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Kapadiya further submits that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, and therefore, without recording evidence and without affording an opportunity to the parties to establish their case, the suit could not have been rejected at the threshold. It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr. Kapadiya that on obtaining knowledge regarding the summary suit filed by the defendant against the son of the plaintiffs, the present suit