IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 485 of 2024 ==========================================================

RAJESHKUMAR NAVNITLAL MEHTA Versus BHIKHIBEN D/O PUNJAJI GULABJI THAKORE AND W/O MANGAJI CHHAGANJI THAKORE & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MR JF MEHTA(461) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 DELETED for the Opponent(s) No.

4,4.1,4.1.1,4.1.2,4.1.3,4.1.4,4.1.5,4.1.6,4.1.7,4.2,4.2.1,4.2.2,4.2.3,4.2.4,4.3,4. 3.1,4.3.1.1,4.3.1.2,4.3.1.3,4.4,4.4.1,4.4.2,4.4.2.1,4.4.2.2,4.4.2.3,4.4.2.4,4.4.2.

5,4.5,4.6,4.6.1,4.6.2,4.6.3,4.6.4,4.7,5,6 MR. JAIMIN R DAVE(7022) for the Opponent(s) No. 1,2,3 MS HIRVA R DAVE(10742) for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI Date : 05/03/2026

JUDGMENT

1. The rejection of the application below Exh. 20 in Regular Civil Suit No. 239 of 2018 has given rise to the present Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( for short “ the Code”).

2. The fact in the nutshell are that the plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 239 of 2018 before the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge at Gandhinagar, against the defendant claiming relief to redeem the mortage qua the land of survey No. 288 of Moje Chiloda admeasuring 2.34.93 hect R.A Sq. mts land and to partition the said suit land by metes and bounds and to hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of their share coming out of the partition with a consequential relief that the sale deed dated 15.06.1987 registered on the Serial No. 984 of 1987 be declared as illegal, forged and not binding to the plaintiff as far as plaintiff’s share is concerned with further consequential relief that the possession of the plaintiff not be disturbed by the defendant issuing perpetual injunction. All these relief are claimed on the basis of the averment that the deceased Punjabhai Gulabji Thakore was the owner of the suit land. He died leaving heirs and legal representatives. The plaintiffs are daughter of Punjaji Gulabji Thakore. The name of the heirs and legal representatives were mutated in the revenue record of the suit land after the death of Punjaji Gulabji Thakore. The plaintiffs being the daughters of the deceased Punjaji Galabji Thakore since were married and were living in their matrimonial home. Meanwhile, defendant No. 1 executed the sale deed on 15.03.1987 vide serial No.948 qua the suit land. The revenue entry was also mutated vide revenue entry No. 1751 but the plaintiff was not aware of the mutation entry as no notice under Section 135(d) of Bombay the land revenue Code ever was served to them. In addition to the aforesaid averment the plaintiff pleaded that aged father mortgaged the suit land at the mortgaged money of Rs. 10,000/- to the defendant.

3. It is further pleaded by the plaintiff that in March 2018 the when the price of the suit land got escalated and the plaintiff decided to sell their share, they have contacted the defendant No.1 and then came to know about the execution of the sale deed way back in the year 1987. The plaintiff doubted that their thumb marks on the sale deed are forged and fabricated and expert opinion was obtained on 15.06.2018 and the expert opinion stated that the thumb mark of plaintiff NO. 1 is forged and bogus one. Pursuant to which the plaintiff having pleaded the fraud,coercion filed the suit and claimed the aforesaid relief

4. The process was served to the other side where defendant No. 3 filed application Exh. 20 under Order 7 Rule 11 (A) and (D) of the Code to reject the plaint. The learned Additional Civil Judge, Gandhinagar vide order dated 30.04.2024 rejected the application mainly on the ground that question of limitation raised in the application is mixed question of law and facts and deserves a trial.

4.1 Hence, this revision.

5. Heard learned advocate Mr. J. F Mehta appearing for the appellant and learned advocate Mr. Jaimin Dave appearing for the