IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 704 of 2025 ==========================================================

PARSHOTTAMBHAI PUNJABHAI PATEL & ORS.

Versus BHIKHABHAI SHAMADBHAI BAROT & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MR JIGAR P RAVAL(2008) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI Date : 13/02/2026 ORAL ORDER

1. This revision application is filed under Section 115 of 'the Code' of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), against the order below Exh-17 and 18 in Special Civil Suit No. 380 of 2007, pending in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), whereby the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of 'the Code', filed by the original defendant nos. 6 to

10, has been rejected vide order dated 18.10.2025.

2. The brief facts, borne out of the record reads as under :

2.1. The plaintiffs have filed the Special Civil Suit for a relief of cancellation of the sale deed, declaration of their share in the ancestral property and other ancillary reliefs. The plaintiffs claim that Shamadbhai Aradbhai is the main ancestor. He was survived by two sons, namely Bhikhabhai and Rameshbhai, and one daughter, Kantaben. Bhikhabhai was survived by Kokilaben, Ilaben, Hasmukhbhai, Devendrabhai, Dharmisthaben. Rameshbhai was survived by Sangeetaben and Hasmukhbhai. The heirs of Bhikhabhai and Rameshbhai are the plaintiffs and they have filed the suit against Bhikhabhai and Rameshbhai claiming that the land of Block No. 107 of Moje Bilasiya, Taluka – Daskroi admeasuring 20,538 sq.

meters, land is ancestral land.

2.2. Upon the death of Shamadbhai Aradbhai, the revenue entry of the agricultural land was mutated in favour of the defendant nos. 1 and 2. The plaintiff by birth in a family of Shamadbhai Aradbhai, has an undivided share in the coparcenary property being a subject matter of the suit, however the defendant nos. 1 and 2 without taking consent of the plaintiff sold the ancestral property by registered sale deed on 05.06.1986 to the defendant no.4. The plaintiff came to know about the execution of the sale deed in recent past from a family friend. Thus, the plaintiffs filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 05.06.1986, executed by their father in favour of Ranchodbhai, also claimed the relief to grant them share in the ancestral coparcenary property and further claim the possession of their share from the ancestral property with the ancillary relief of perpetual injuction.

2.3. Pending the suit, it came to the notice of the plaintiff that the subject matter of the suit being an ancestor property has been sold to the defendant nos.

6 to 10. The plaintiffs preferred an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of 'the Code' to join defendant nos. 6 to 10 as party defendants. Subsequently, another application under Order 6 Rule 17 of 'the Code' was preferred to amend the plaint to challenge the validity and legality of the sale deed executed in favour of the newly joined as defendant nos. 6 to 10 on the very same ground that ancestral property cannot be sold without the consent of the plaintiffs. Both the applications are allowed. Defendant no. 6 to 10 are joined as party defendants and plaint was amended accordingly.

2.4. It is in this background that the defendant nos. 6 to 10 came out with an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of 'the Code' to reject the plaint. The application was rejected by the learned Trial Court.

Hence, this revision.

3. In order to admit this revision application, learned advocate Mr. Jigar Raval mainly argued that the suit against the defendant nos. 1 to 3 is filed after 21 years. The plaintiffs and defendant no.1 and 2, in connivance with each other have filed the civil suit to disturb the title passed in favour of defendant no.4 and subsequently passed in favour of the defendant nos. 6 to 10. Learned advocate Mr. Jigar Raval takin