JUDGMENT :

BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.

1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Dhaval C. Dave with learned advocate Mr. Jigar P. Raval for the appellants and learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mehul Suresh Shah with learned advocate Mr. Vishal C. Mehta for the respondent no.3.

2. This appeal is filed by the original plaintiffs being aggrieved by judgment and order dated 22.03.2018 passed below Exhs.47 and 48 in Civil Suit No.1197 of 2017 by Court No.17, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad allowing the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (For short “the Code”) for rejection of the plaint and as a consequence thereof the decree is passed below Exh.1 rejecting the suit.

3. The appellants are referred to as the plaintiffs and the respondents are referred to as the defendants for the sake of convenience.

Facts:

4. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs who are the legal heirs of late Ramshakti Jivandas Sheth, instituted Regular Civil Suit No.1197/2017 for declaration that sale deed dated 29.12.2010 registered at Serial No.13982 with the office of Sub Registrar, Ahmedabad-5, Narol is illegal.

5. It is the case of the plaintiffs that land admeasuring 17300 sq. mtrs. of Survey No.111 and Survey No.111A situated at Village Narol, District Sub-District Ahmedabad along with land admeasuring 405 sq. mtrs of Pot Kharaba, total land admeasuring 17705 sq. mtrs was of the ownership of defendant no.1 late Bhalabhai Dahyabhai and thereafter of his legal heirs defendant nos. 1/1 and defendant no. 1/2, defendant no.2 – late Bimani, widow of Ravjibhai and thereafter her legal heirs defendant no. 2/1 and defendant no.2/2.

6. During the pendency of the appeal, defendant no.1/1- Bhupendrabhai Bhalabhai Patel expired and therefore, his legal heirs being defendant nos. 1.1.1 to 1.1.4 were brought on record. Defendant no.1.1.3-Nimesh Bhupendrabhai Patel also expired during the pendency of the appeal and therefore, his legal heirs being 1.1.3/1 and 1.1.3/2 are also brought on record.

7. It is the case of the plaintiffs that entire land was purchased by the predecessor of the defendants by registered sale deed dated 15.05.1959.

8. It is the case of the plaintiffs that late father of the plaintiffs- Sheth Ramshakti Jivandas along with the plaintiffs purchased the land admeasuring 10346 sq. mtrs out of the entire land (here-in-after referred to as “the suit land”) along with right of passage by registered agreement to sale dated 14.05.1984 at the rate of Rs.16/- per sq mtr. for total consideration of Rs.1,65,536/- and had also paid 80% of the sale consideration amounting to Rs.1,32,430/- by cheque to defendant nos. 1/1, 1/2, 2/1 and 2/2 and their predecessor and defendants had executed irrevocable Power of Attorney, supplementary agreement and affidavit to the effect that vacant possession of the suit land was handed over to the plaintiffs as owners. It is the case of the plaintiffs that since 1984, the plaintiffs are de facto owners of the suit land. It is the case of the plaintiffs that in the suit land, the plaintiffs had made construction and started a company named “Subhang Process Mill Pvt. Ltd.” registered under the provisions of the Companies Act and the name of the company of the plaintiffs is shown in the Municipal records as an occupier since 1986 and name of the plaintiffs are shown as the owner in the Municipal records for the taxation purpose.

9. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs are enjoying the possession of the suit land for more than three decades without any hindrance. It is the case of the plaintiffs that formal registered sale deed could not be executed due to some legal and technical obstacles for a long time in spite of repeated requests being made to the defendants and their predecessors by the plaintiffs for getting NA permission. However, assurance was given by the defendants that ownership rights were already with the plaintiffs and therefore, there was no need to worry in spite of the fact that a