Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 767 (GUJ)

Velbai Naran Varsani D/o Natha Harji Halai v. Natha Harji Halai

2018-06-21

A.G.URAIZEE, S.R.BRAHMBHATT

body2018
JUDGMENT : A.G. Uraizee, J. The appellant-original plaintiff has preferred the present Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to challenge the judgment and order dated 9th April, 2015 passed by learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kutch Bhuj in Special Civil Suit No.111 of 2011 whereby he rejected the aforesaid special civil suit. 2. The appellant herein instituted Special Civil Suit No.111 of 2011 in the Court of learned Principal Civil Judge, Kachch-Bhuj for permanent injunction and declaration and also to set aside the sale deed executed in respect of survey No.36/2, 37, 40, 42. 870/55 as she has got share in the said land being ancestral property, in this suit, she also took out Exhibit-5 application under Order 39 Rule 1(2) for restraining the respondents from transferring the suit property in any manner. The learned trial Judge by the order 4th November 2011 dismissed Exhibit-5 application against which Appeal from Order No.8 of 2012 was preferred before this Court, which was admitted by this Court vide order dated 25th June 2013. The same was also ordered to be heart with this appeal by the learned Single Judge. 3. The appellant also filed application exhibit 22 for amendment of the plaint on 30th March 2012, which was opposed by respondents nos. 10 to 12 by filing their reply. The learned trial judge, after hearing both the sides, partly allowed the amendment application by the order dated 7th October 2013. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has filed Civil Revision Application No.25 of 2014 before this Court, which was converted into Special Civil Application No.5746 of 2014 and the same was also ordered to be heard with this appeal by the learned Single Judge. 4. Thereafter, respondents Nos. 10 to 12 have also filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code for rejection of the plaint. The appellant filed reply to the said application vide exhibit 90. The learned trial Judge heard the application exhibit 60 and after hearing the parties the learned judge allowed the application exhibit 60 filed by respondents nos. 10 to 12 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code and rejected the plaint of the appellant. 5. We have heard Mr. Deepak M. Shah, learned advocate for the appellant, Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned senior advocate assisted by Mr. Mehulsharad Shah, learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 10 to 12 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code and rejected the plaint of the appellant. 5. We have heard Mr. Deepak M. Shah, learned advocate for the appellant, Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned senior advocate assisted by Mr. Mehulsharad Shah, learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 10 to 12, Mr. V.K. Sevak, learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and Mr. Karuna V. Rahevar, learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 5 to 9. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent No.1 despite service of notice of the appeal. 6. At the outset, it needs to be noted respondent No.1 happens to be the father of the appellant while respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are her brother. Respondent Nos. 5 to 9 purchased the suit land from the respondent No.1 and they in tern have sold the suit land to respondent Nos. 10 to 12. 7. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted synopsis of oral arguments which is as under:- "1. The Appellant-Plaintiff herein above states that for bringing all the true facts to the notice of the Hon'ble Courts about the pending litigations, along with respective document i.e. 1974 and 1980, declaration on oath by Hiraji Parbat, the grandfather of the Plaintiff and others along with other documents produced in the Suit proceeding with respect to establishing the rights into the ancestral properties, where- in Plaintiff, along with her brothers and others, claim their rights of share on partition, being heirs of the family of her father Natha Hirji but obtained from her grand-father HIRJI PARBAT UKEDA HALAI. As Natha Hirji had no authority and/or right to sell the Suit properties not being his self acquired properties, the plaintiff has challenged the sale transactions obtained by fraud etc. by the named Defendants on the grounds mentioned in Suit proceedings. 2. Admittedly, the Trial Court has merely relying upon the say of the Respondents nos. 10, 11 and 12 - Defendants, decided the application under Order 7 rule 11 of C.P.C. by totally ignoring the documentary evidence on record of the Suit proceedings produced by the Plaintiff, which surely, prima-facie and fundamentally establish the Suit properties being ancestral properties and the Plaintiff has right to have her share as an heir of the branch of Hirji Parbat and Natha Hirji but not concerned with other branch of brothers of Hirji Parbat. 3. 3. Among other properties and lands, the disputed agricultural lands being Survey numbers - 36/2, 37, 40, 42, 870/55 and 91 are situated in Bhuj Sim, Kutchh District; S. No. 116/1 and 117/2 are at Village Sukhpar, Bhuj. These lands are deriving from the great grandfather of the AppellantPlaintiff viz. Named Ukeda Halai. He was having two sons, viz. (1) Hirji (2) Bhimji (3) Lalji and (4) Kanji Harji, the grand-father of the AppellantPlaintiff, is having two sons viz(1) Natha, Plaintiff's father and (2) Premji and four daughters viz (1) Jethiben, (2) Radhaben, (3) Deevuben and (4) Purben. 4. That Natha Hirji, father of the Appellant-Plaintiff, is having three sons viz (1) Jadava, (2) Dhanji and (3) Ravji and one daughter viz. the Appellant. The family members are agriculturist, poor persons, illiterate and they do not know how to read and write. 5. During the time when the Appellant velbai and her three brothers were Minors, in connivance with uncles Bhimji and Lalji, but without knowledge and consent of Hirji Parbat, Plaintiff's father of Natha Hirji and his uncles Lalji Parbat, Bhimji Parbat, they created an agreement for inter-se partition of lands including aforesaid lands behind back of all heirs and family members. Further, they created sale agreements of those properties interse by showing the same to be self-acquired properties with mala-fide intention to deprive all other co-sharers including children of Natha Hirji from inheritance and share in the ancestral properties i.e. the Suit Properties. 6. For the purpose of giving the real and true facts and events and ill-intention of Nathabhai, Plaintiff's grand-father Hirji Parbat Ukeda and Patel Prembai D/o Bhimji Parbat have made declaration on oath in their affidavits dated 17-06-2009 (which is at Annexure B to the memo of Appeal From Order No. 8 of 2012, the same is produced with separate list.) 7. As a father Natha Hirji has played mischief and created documents to deprive the ancestral properties rights, titles, etc. in the aforesaid properties, his children, the legal heirs have ervery legal rights and authority independent to prefer the necessary legal proceedings in the matters, thus they have preferred different Suit proceedings of which the details are explained herein after and for what their grandfather Hirji Parbat has supported the prevailing truth and even the allege sale deeds of 1974 and 1980 speak voluminous truth about the Suit properties being ancestral properties. In fact Natha Hirji and uncle have categorically admitted the suit properties being ancestral properties deriving from forefathers, but have given name of arrangement as sale-deed. The interpretation of both the deeds clearly, beyond doubt establish that none of it is/was self-acquired properties but ancestral properties. 8. That during the life time of Plaintiff's mother Bachiben, who expired, Plaintiff's father and her brothers were all happy in joint family and they all were jointly doing agricultural work in the aforesaid lands without any differences and quarrels. The Plaintiff's father had/have relations with one Mrs. Manjulaben, who has become family member of her father. Thus, on changing the family atmosphere, Natha Hirji on 15-02-2006 preferred RCS no31 of 2006 against his three sons and one his brother-in-law Devshi Hiraji Bhudiya, for injunction against them from disturbing his possession in properties aforesaid and by amendment for the first time prayed for declaration to the effect that the properties are exclusively owned by him has self acquired. Thus, for the first time three brothers came to know about the arrangements made for titles of these ancestral properties as his self acquired in connivance with the granduncles. Plaintiff came to know later on the facts in detail and have preferred the present proceeding as under:- a. 15-04-2010 Along with RCS no.31 of 2006, Natha Hirji also preferred criminal complaints against three sons, they were arrested and kept in jail for considerable period and taking the advantage of their helplessness, the aforesaid Suit was got disposed off on the alleged but forcible compromise with the sons, at the instance of somebody interested in grabbing the properties aforesaid. b. 16-04-2010 An unregistered general power of attorney was got executed from Natha Hirji, by some same forces at instances of whom the aforesaid Suit and criminal cases were preferred and during the period three sons were got kept detained for considerable time in jail, in favour of an unknown person named Malharji V. Jadeja, a totally strange persons to the family as explanation put up by Natha Hirji in his application dated 05-09-2012 (428/7) for recall of Order before Trial Court i.e. Order of consent decree dated 15-04-2010 in RCS no.31 of 2006 on the grounds of fraud, misrepresentation etc. by concern advocates and others. by concern advocates and others. c. Note: The present Respondents preferred an application to join them as parties to contest the proceedings, the same is rejected by the trial Court. d. 17-04-2010: Without consent, on ignorance, behind his back of Nathabhai and on misrepresentation, the power of attorney holder executed registered sale deed for Rs.35 lakhs of the lands in disputes in favour of another unknown person named Hathusinh Bhanjibha Jadeja, who is traced as brother-in-law of power of attorney holder. For the purpose concern persons have not paid anything to Nathabhai but his signatures seems to have been obtained on some documents on misrepresentations. The power of attorney deed is unregistered document and any act and/or transaction(s) done pursuant to it, becomes illegal, null and void. Thus, one more act of fraud is committed against the poor illiterate agricultural family. Thus, the first sale transaction itself is illegal, null and void abinitio and the alleged purchaser does not get any right, title and/or interest in the properties nor the subsequent sale deeds become valid in any manner. e. 12-01-2011 From the aforesaid Benami purchaser, sale - deeds were got executed for alleged price of Rs.85 lakhs in favour of Sri Govind Mavji Gorasia, Gopal Mavji Gorasia and Madam Ritaben Gopal Gorasia, who are Defendants-Respondents in the proceedings and who have as their own statement disposed off about more than 103 plots within period between January and June 2015 of the lands in disputes, pending litigations before Civil Court as well before this Hon'ble High Court and even during the operation of the "Order of status quo" passed by Hon'ble High Court on by parte hearing and also when this Hon'ble High Court have punished one of them for committing contempt of Court on finding him guilty by Judgment and Order dated 16-03-2016 in Civil Application no.6510 of 2015 in C.A. No.4112 of 2015 in pending Appeal From Order no. 8 of 2012 on appreciation of all the pleadings r.w. Documents relied upon by the parties. f. As the possession of the Suit properties since years actually remained with the family till February, 2015 and as the proceedings were/are pending before the Hon'ble High Court, the question of praying for possession of her share in the Suit properties did not arise as there was/is no dispute about her share in the Suit properties between them. f. As the possession of the Suit properties since years actually remained with the family till February, 2015 and as the proceedings were/are pending before the Hon'ble High Court, the question of praying for possession of her share in the Suit properties did not arise as there was/is no dispute about her share in the Suit properties between them. Further, it becomes lawful choice for a married daughter when to demand her share, when there is no dispute for the same with her brothers. 9. 01-05-2012 Special Civil Suit no. 68 of 2012 (pending) is preferred by Natha Hirji and his three sons viz. Jadav Hirji, Premji Hirji and Ravji Hirji against number of persons including Shri Govind Mavji (D/7); Gopal Mavji (D/8), and Ritaben Gopal (D/9) therein, for cancellation of all registered sale - deeds including the sale deeds standing in favour of Defendants nos. 7 to 9 therein being sham, bogus, fraudulent, illegal void, without authority etc. a. 25-07-2012 Exh. A/3, is the panchanama of the lands with map drawn by the Court commissioner in presence of parties. [The copy of the plaint and panchanama are produced with list]. 10. 17-09-2008 Dinesh s/o Dhanaji Natha Halai has preferred Reg. Civil Suit no.544 of 2008 before Court of Principal Senior Civil Court, Bhuj-Kutchch against Natha Hirji Halai and 15 others for partition, possession and declaration in the matter of these ancestral HUF properties. The Suit is pending before the Trial Court. That merely because nephew Dinesh says that Velbai hasno share in the ancestral Suit properties, it cannot be legally considered against her as still the adjudication is not done on that aspect too. 11. 19/20-12-2012 The Appellant-Plaintiff Velbai in Civil Suit no. 111/2011, preferred an Appeal from Order no. 8 of 2012 against Order on exh.5 in the Suit before Hon'ble High Court, the same is admitted on 25-06-2013 after hearing advocates of the parties including Respondents nos. 10 to 12. 12. 06-04-2015 as the Respondents took forcible possession in February, 2015. The Appellant preferred Civil Application no.3520 of 2015 in Appeal From Order no. 8 of 2012 on 11-03-2015. After hearing the Learned Advocates of the parties and on considering the pleadings and documents on record, Hon'ble High Court granted an Order dated 06-04-2015, "to maintain status quo with regard to the disputed land" by the Respondents no. The Appellant preferred Civil Application no.3520 of 2015 in Appeal From Order no. 8 of 2012 on 11-03-2015. After hearing the Learned Advocates of the parties and on considering the pleadings and documents on record, Hon'ble High Court granted an Order dated 06-04-2015, "to maintain status quo with regard to the disputed land" by the Respondents no. 10 to 12, however, on request Direct service for Respondents no. 10 to 13 was also served, Respondent no. 13 is the District Collector, who seems to have played important role. 13. 15-07-2013 and 10-10-2013 The Respondents, without joining the original owners and on suppression of the litigations aforesaid and the facts of their appearance as parties in the pending proceedings before Hon'ble High Court, applied for getting N.A. Permission and the required certificate to The District Collector, Kutchch on the grounds that Lis pendent proceedings are pending preferred by the plaintiff's of the pending Civil Proceedings. 14. 02-07-2014 Those persons preferred Special Civil Applications nos. 9727 and 10152 of 2014 before the Hon'ble High Court, by suppressing all the material facts about pending proceedings and without joining concern parties including the Appellant. The authority to consider Applications, when made by them. 15. 01-09-2014 and 17-09-2014 The District Collector, Kutch without notice and/or hearing concern parties, and without referring to the pending proceedings and also aforesaid Orders of the Hon'ble High Court wherein the very authority is the party granted N.A. Permission for the lands in disputes. One of the main condition no.28, was to the effect "the concern parties are directed that the lands in question will not be transferred in any manner till the Orders by the Hon'ble High Court/Civil Court." 16. 26-09-2014: Surprisingly, The District Collector, Kutch, modified his Orders aforesaid by deleting condition no. 28 to favor and for the convenience of the Respondents no. 10 to 12 herein. The concern authority deliberately ignored the pending judicial proceedings and assumed the powers of judiciary inspite of the facts him being Respondent no. 13 before this Court. 17. 06-04-2015 After hearing the concern advocates of the parties, including Respondents nos. 10, 11 and 12, Hon'ble High Court in Civil Application No.4112 of 2015 in A.O. No. 8 of 2012, passed interim Orders and the same was duly served to them. 18. 15-04-2015 Hon'ble High Court rejected Civil Application No.4894 of 2015 in Appeal From Order no. 17. 06-04-2015 After hearing the concern advocates of the parties, including Respondents nos. 10, 11 and 12, Hon'ble High Court in Civil Application No.4112 of 2015 in A.O. No. 8 of 2012, passed interim Orders and the same was duly served to them. 18. 15-04-2015 Hon'ble High Court rejected Civil Application No.4894 of 2015 in Appeal From Order no. 8 of 2012 filed by the Respondents for vacating interim Orders granted on 06-04-2015 in Civil Application Nos. 3520 and 4112 of 2015. 19. 16-03-2016 In Civil Application No.6510 of 2015, Hon'ble High Court, after considering the pleadings, record of the case, arguments and case laws, by an Order dated 16-03-2016 passed an Order of conviction to Respondent no. 10 for committing breach of Orders and the judicial proceedings. Other side has preferred Special Leave Petition (Civil) no. 13088 of 2017 on 03-04-2017, before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the same is pending for hearing. Thus the matter at large is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. 20. The Review Application M.C.A. No.182 of 2016 preferred by the convicted is rejected by Hon'ble High Court, by Order dated 15-02-2017 and the same is a part of aforesiad appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court. 21. The - Appellant has preferred M.C.A. No. 184 of 2016 for review of Order aforesaid for imposing conviction to Respondents nos. 11 and 12, as they were active parties to the deliberate contempt of Courts' Orders. The same is pending before Hon'ble Single Judge. [In both the review applications, all the three Respondents are praying for unconditional apology for really committing contempt of Court but on conditions to give them permission to purge the contempt by cancelling the Orders and also only on this condition they are ready and willing to cancel the concern sale-deeds. Thus they are seeking judicial protection for the wrongs done by them to save their face. They conveniently want to escape from perjury by getting purge. They also claim to be law abiding persons.] 22. Further, these Respondents have got revenue entries showing them as owners of the lands with effect from the year 2004-2005, inspite of facts that the sale-deeds in their favor were got executed on 12-01-2011. These facts also establish systematic plans for grabbing the lands of the poor, illiterate, raw villagers like the applicant, her brothers and other family members. Further, these Respondents have got revenue entries showing them as owners of the lands with effect from the year 2004-2005, inspite of facts that the sale-deeds in their favor were got executed on 12-01-2011. These facts also establish systematic plans for grabbing the lands of the poor, illiterate, raw villagers like the applicant, her brothers and other family members. This is surely done for their huge benefits in their property business at the cost of really law abiding poor agriculturist-villagers by putting the whole family in agonies and helplessness. 23. For this purpose along with other subjects, the Appellant has preferred required proceedings dated 17-09-2014 before the District Collector, Kutch at Bhuj, on producing all facts about pending proceedings before Civil Court, Bhuj as well before the Hon'ble High Court, the same is pending. 24. Further, the concern Advocate Shri Kirtisinh Tejapalsinh Chaudhari and Shri Yogesh D. Bhandarakar have filed Special Civil Suit No.172 of 2013 and Special Civil Suit No. 64 of 2014 before the Principal Senior Civil Court, Bhuj-Kutch against three learned Advocates who are appearing for the family members of the Appellant and Natha Halai and his three sons for recovery respectively damages of Rs.5,00,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,00,000/- for defaming their names in news papers, before government offices and before the Hon'ble Courts in the pending proceedings." 8. Learned advocate for the appellant has relied upon the following judgment in support of his submission:- S.NO. Particulars 1. (2016) 4 GLR 3205 Parmar Narmadaben and Ors. V. Amratial Motibhai Prajapati and Ors. 2. (2011) 1 GLR 637 Bhupendra H. Dalwadi v. Deceased Savitriben G. Krishnani 3. 2014 AIR SCW 5963 State of Orissa v. Fakir Charan Sethi 4. AIR 2015 SC 3357 Vaish Agrawal Panchayat v. Inder Kumar and Ors. 5. AIR 2007 Patna 1 Kapildeo Prasad and anor. v. Ramanand Prasad and Ors. 6. AIR 2007 Jharkhand 88 Mahadeo Prasad Burnwal V. Atpendra Roy Chaudhary and Ors. 7. AIR 1975 SC 1590 Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Shri Raj Narain and Ors. 8. (2012) 5 SCC 337 Rameshkumar Agrawal V. Rajmala Expots Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. 9. AIR 2011 SC 1140 K.M.K and Ors. v. Bombay E.A. Group and Ors. 9. Learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 has submitted written arguments with documents which is as under:- "1. 8. (2012) 5 SCC 337 Rameshkumar Agrawal V. Rajmala Expots Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. 9. AIR 2011 SC 1140 K.M.K and Ors. v. Bombay E.A. Group and Ors. 9. Learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 has submitted written arguments with documents which is as under:- "1. That the documents referred to herein are the part of the documentary evidence on record of the case before the Trial Court, but seems to have been ignored and/or taken into deciding the matter by picking up a sentence and/or a word here and there. The findings arrived at are to favor the respondents nos.5 to 12 only at the prejudice and causing injustice to the concern parties and family members of the plaintiff and respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4, who are entitled to the share in the ancestral suit properties. This is done in spite of the facts of the pleadings of the plaint read with documentary evidence on record of the court proving and establishing the same to be ancestral properties derived from the for-fathers of these respondents and the plaintiff. And in spite of the facts as to all the sale transactions between respondents nos. 5 to 12 are shown and clearly pleaded to be fraudulent, illegal, ab-initio null and void as also got executed with sham and unregistered power of attorney obtained by fraud from father Natha Hirji. Thus, legally and morally, the respondents nos. 10, 11 and 12 are not having right, titles and/or to deny the right, title and interest of the plaintiff and/or respondents nos. 2 to 4 and other family members in these ancestral suit properties. 2. With respect, the first deed dated 12-07-1974, there paras 3, 4 and 5 therein and second deed dated 12-03-1980, paras nos. 3, 5 and 7, between Natha Hirji and Uncles, read with revenue entries nos. 237, 721, 722 etc., admittedly explains, shown and established that these suit properties as ancestral properties derived from forfathers. More particularly, both of them have specifically admitted the same to be family's ancestral properties. 3, 5 and 7, between Natha Hirji and Uncles, read with revenue entries nos. 237, 721, 722 etc., admittedly explains, shown and established that these suit properties as ancestral properties derived from forfathers. More particularly, both of them have specifically admitted the same to be family's ancestral properties. Thus, in any view of the matter merely by changing nomenclature of description of the properties, the same can legally be not treated as self acquired properties of either Natha Hirji and/or concerned uncles and rights, title and/or interest therein of family members can legally be not denied nor can it be jeopardized in the name judicial process etc. The copies of the deeds along with revenue entries are attached herewith. 3. Further, Natha Hirji himself has preferred Civil Application (exh.428/7) dated 05-09-2012 in his own civil suit no. 31/2006 for recalling the alleged consent decree dated 15-04-2010 the stated to have obtained by playing fraud etc. by the concern advocates. Further, these respondents have earlier preferred an application dated 21-04-2012 exh. no.423 under order 23 rule 3 of code of civil procedure for recalling the alleged consent decree date 15-04-2010 in R.C.S. No.31/2006 on the various grounds including the same having obtained by fraud, the same are pending before the civil Court for adjudication. Copies there of are attached herewith. 4. Further, in the Special Civil Suit No. 111 of 2011 preferred by Velbai d/o Natha Hirji, grandfather Hirji Parbat aged 92 and aunt Prembai d/o Bhimji Parbat aged 80 have by their declarations on oath dated 17-06-2009 specifically stated these suit properties to be ancestral properties where-in all the family members are having their share, rights, interest etc. further, stated that his son Natha Hirji, brother Bhimji Parbat have illegally created those sale deeds for their self interest. These documents are also part of the documentary evidence before the trial Court, copies thereof are attached herewith. 5. That the father of the plaintiff and respondents nos. 2, 3 and 4, Natha Hirji Halai have preferred Specially Civil Suit No. 68 of 2012 for quashing and setting aside all the sale deeds by and between respondent nos. 5 to 12 viz. no.6742 dated 17-04-2010, no. 617 dated 12-01-2011 etc. the same being illegal, sham, bogus, created, fraudulent, null, void, without authority etc. and also void being executed under un-registered and fraudulent power-of-attorney and for all consequential remedies as prayed for. 5 to 12 viz. no.6742 dated 17-04-2010, no. 617 dated 12-01-2011 etc. the same being illegal, sham, bogus, created, fraudulent, null, void, without authority etc. and also void being executed under un-registered and fraudulent power-of-attorney and for all consequential remedies as prayed for. The same is pending for adjudication before Civil Court, Bhuj, Kutch. Further, these respondents are also joined as plaintiffs nos. 2 to 4 therein. Copy thereof is attached herewith. 6. Further, the facts that the respondent no.10 is convicted in Civil Application (for directions) no. 6510 of 2015 in Civil Application No. 4112 of 2015 in Appeal from Order no. 8 of 2012 and is imposed punishment for disregarding and admittedly for committing breach of interim orders of this Hon'ble High Court, speak by itself about their modusoperandi. Further, more particularly when they claim to be Law Abiding Citizens, who have from the inceptions continued acts illegally but by executing well preplanned commission of their expansion of estate business as explained herein before. Thus, from the beginning they have acted illegally for their self-interest by disregarding judicial process, this is real example of abuse of judicial process and absurdity. 7. These respondents have in their separate affidavits dated 05-08-2017 have given their explanations in the matter. The same are also attached herewith. 8. It is humbly submitted that in view of the facts and circumstances explained herein before and in the written arguments etc. dated 22-07-2017 alongwith citations submitted by the appellant-petitioner-plaintiff, and on considering the decision by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 2003 AIR SC 1391 holding that transactions become and remains invalid, illegal, void etc. not vesting any right, title and/or interest in the transferee(s), when the same is executed by un-registered power-of attorney. Copy of the decision is attached herewith. The appeal, writ petition and appeal from order aforesaid preferred by Velbai d/o Natha Hirji be allowed, resulting in to justice done to the poor, illiterate agriculturists for preserving their livelihood and maintenance to the large members of family. 9. The arguments etc. by the appellant-petitioner are adopted by these respondents. 10. That the following documents are attached here with for ready reference, as they are part of the different paper-books on record and also are part of the documentary evidence of the suit proceedings:- (1) Copy of the deed dated 12-07-1974 between Halai Lalji Parbat and Natha Hirji. 9. The arguments etc. by the appellant-petitioner are adopted by these respondents. 10. That the following documents are attached here with for ready reference, as they are part of the different paper-books on record and also are part of the documentary evidence of the suit proceedings:- (1) Copy of the deed dated 12-07-1974 between Halai Lalji Parbat and Natha Hirji. (2) Copy of the deed dated 14-03-1980 between Kanai Natha Halai and Bhimji Parbat. (3) Copy of the record of revenue entries nos. 237, 721, 722 etc. (4) Copy of an application exh. 428/7 in RCS No.31/2006 Dated 05-09-2012 by Natha Hirji before Civil Court, Bhuj. (5) Copy of an application exh. 423 dated 21-04- 2012 by the respondents nos. 2, 3, and 4 (as defendants) in R.C.S. No.31/2006. (6) Copy of declaration on oath by Hirji Parbat dated 17-06-2009. (7) Copy of declaration on oath by Prambai d/o Bhimji Parbat dated 17-09-2009. (8) Copy of the plaint in Special Civil Suit No. 68 of 2012 preferred by Natha Harji and others against present respondents nos. 5 to 12 as well 13 and 14 before Civil Court, Bhuj, Kutch. (9) Affidavit by respondent - 2, Jadva Natha Halai. (10) Affidavit by respondent-3, Dhanji Natha Halai, (11) Affidavit by respondent-4, Ravji Natha Halai. (12) Copy of the judgment and order dated 16-03- 2016, convicting respondent no.10 in C.A. No.6510/2015 in C.A. No.4112/15 in Appeal from Order no. 8 of 2012 by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. (13) Copy of the decision in 2003 AIR SC 1391." 10. Learned advocate for the contesting respondent Nos. 10 to 12 has submitted written argument as under:- "1. The present appellant - Velbai D/o Natha Harji Halai has filed the present First Appeal against the judgment and order dated 09.04.2015 passed by the learned 3rd Joint Senior Civil Judge, Kutch at Bhuj in Special Civil Suit No.111/2011, below an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. SHORT FACTS: 2. Originally the following persons were owners of the respective survey numbers as under:- 1. Harji Parbat Survey No.43 (A.7.34 gunthas) 2. Lalji Parbat Survey No.36/2 (A.8.3 gunthas) Survey No.42 (A.1.38 gunthas) 3. Bhimji Parbat Survey No.37 (A.2.23 gunthas) Survey No.40 (A.8.25 gunthas) 3. Lalji Parbat sold land to Natha Harji - (father of plaintiff) by registered sale deed dated 12.07.1974. Originally the following persons were owners of the respective survey numbers as under:- 1. Harji Parbat Survey No.43 (A.7.34 gunthas) 2. Lalji Parbat Survey No.36/2 (A.8.3 gunthas) Survey No.42 (A.1.38 gunthas) 3. Bhimji Parbat Survey No.37 (A.2.23 gunthas) Survey No.40 (A.8.25 gunthas) 3. Lalji Parbat sold land to Natha Harji - (father of plaintiff) by registered sale deed dated 12.07.1974. Revenue entry No. 151 was mutated in favor of Natha Harji as owner of land bearing Survey No. 36 and 42 (page-26-32). 4. Bhimji Parbat sold land to Natha Harji (father of plaintiff) by registered sale deed dated 14.03.1980 and revenue entry No. 508 was mutated in revenue record qua land bearing Survey No. 37 and 40. (page 33-43). 5. It is an admitted fact that Natha Harji had purchased the land and he was exclusive owner of the suit land. He had not received the land in succession. There is no evidence on record to show that the suit land is an ancestral property or joint Hindu Family property. It was running in the name of Natha Harji alone since 1947 and 1980 and no body has objected. 6. Natha Harji - original defendant No. 1 through power of attorney holder, executed registered Sale deed in favour of Hathusinh Bhanji Jadeja and others on 17.04.2010 i.e. original defendant Nos. 5 to 9. 7. Thereafter before purchasing the land, original defendant Nos. 10 to 12 have given public notice dated 13.10.2010 in Kutch Mitra daily. No one has raised any objection. 8. Hathusinh Bhanji Jadeja ( def. 5 to 9) and others have executed registered sale deed in favour of original defendant Nos. 10 to 12 on 12.01.2011 (page 44 to 75) 9. Original defendant Nos. 10 to 12 have also purchased land bearing Survey No. 41/p-1 admeasuring Hect. 2.37 acres by registered sale deed dated 07.07.2011 from one Shivji Mavji Padhara. The suit land as well as the land bearing survey No.41/p/1 have been consolidated and one survey number 40 was given. 10. Present Special Civil Suit No. 111/2011 came to be filed on 18.07.2011, after six months of the registered sale deed dated 12.01.2011. 11. It is the case of original plaintiff - present appellant that she is daughter of original defendant no. 1 Natha Harji Halai. 10. Present Special Civil Suit No. 111/2011 came to be filed on 18.07.2011, after six months of the registered sale deed dated 12.01.2011. 11. It is the case of original plaintiff - present appellant that she is daughter of original defendant no. 1 Natha Harji Halai. She had averred in the suit that the suit land is of joint Hindu Family property and it was never partitioned between the family members. It was further averred that she has not given any right to Bhimji Parbat and Lalji Parbat (uncles of father) to execute sale deed in favour of original defendant No. 1 - her father. It was further averred that one other suit No.544/2008 was filed by her nephew is pending, claiming share in the property. It is further averred that defendant No.1 has no right to dispose of the property though he executed sale deed in favour of defendant Nos. 5 to 9. Therefore, the suit was filed to restrain the defendants from taking any permission to convert the land for nonagricultural use and to restrain the defendants from dealing with the property. The suit was filed with a prayer to cancel the registered sale deed dated 17.04.2010 and 12.01.2011 and also for permanent injunction. 12. It is an admitted fact that the suit is not filed claiming any share in the property and the suit is also not filed claiming possession of the property. (Suit plaint-page-5-10) 13. Father of plaintiff - defendant No. 1 has filed written statement stating that it was his self-acquired property (page 16 to 23) Defendant No. 1 also referred one Regular Civil Suit No. 31/2006 filed by him against his sons i.e. original defendant Nos. 2 to 4 of the present suit. It was further averred in the written statement that the sons have filed purshis admitting the ownership of defendant No. 1 and thereby defendant No. 1 had withdrawn the suit No. 31/2006. (page 118 to 120) 14. The learned trial Court, after considering the evidence on record and provisions of law in its true perspective, by a reasoned order dated 04.11.2011, has been pleased to dismiss application below Exh.5 (page 76 to 97). 15. The appeal from Order No. 8/2012 presented on 27.12.2011 and prayer for interim relief was also incorporated in Appeal from Order. AO 8/2012 was admitted on 25.06.2013 and no interim relief was granted. 16. 15. The appeal from Order No. 8/2012 presented on 27.12.2011 and prayer for interim relief was also incorporated in Appeal from Order. AO 8/2012 was admitted on 25.06.2013 and no interim relief was granted. 16. Original appellant moved C.A. No. 3520/2015 in AO 8/2012 ON 11.03.2015 and CA No. 4112/2015 on 22.03.2015. Both the applications came to be heard by the Hon'ble High Court on 06.04.2015 and by order dated 06.04.2015 matter was ordered to stand over to 18.06.2015 and till then the parties were directed to maintain status-quo with regard to disputed land (page 132-133) 17. It is pertinent to note that original defendant Nos. 10 to 12 have filed one application under Order VII Rule -11 before the trial Court on 18.12.2012 (page 98 to 100) 18. The learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bhuj, Kutchh by order dated 09.04.2015 has been pleased to reject the suit under Order VII Rule 11(A) for want of cause of action (page 101 to 117) 19. The present appellant has filed First Appeal No. 863/2015 along with Civil Application No. 5477/2015. The Hon'ble High Court has been pleased to admit the appeal and continue the interim relief granted by the trial Court, suspending the operation of the order of rejection of suit till final disposal of the appeal by order dated 04.05.2015 (page 135-136) Important points for First Appeal 20. Father of the plaintiff - defendant No. 1 herein has filed written statement on 26.08.2011 it is the specific case of father of the plaintiff - original owner that it was his self acquired property and that he had purchased the same in the year 1974 and in the year 1980. Those sale deeds have not been challenged by any of the family members. If it is the case of the plaintiff that it was Ancestral Properties then she has to challenge the sale deeds of year 1974 to 1980. 21. If it is self acquired properties and during life time father has disposed the same then daughter has no cause of action to file suit. Admittedly father has not received it in succession. 22. All three sons of original defendant No. 1 Natha Halai and brothers of the plaintiff had executed consent agreement accepting that land in dispute is of the ownership of father. They are aware about the sale deeds and they have no objection qua sale transactions. 23. Admittedly father has not received it in succession. 22. All three sons of original defendant No. 1 Natha Halai and brothers of the plaintiff had executed consent agreement accepting that land in dispute is of the ownership of father. They are aware about the sale deeds and they have no objection qua sale transactions. 23. Dinesh S/o Dhanji Halai has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 544/2008 for partition of the suit property against the present plaintiff and other family members wherein no injunction is granted till date. In the aforesaid suit No.544/2008 it was averred in para-2 of the plaintiff that the present plaintiff Velbai had relinquished her right and she was married and staying at her matrimonial home. 24. On the face of it, it is crystal clear that plaintiff Velbai has no right, interest in the property. Father - defendant No. 1 was holding self-acquired property and he executed the sale deedin favour of defendant Nos. 5 to 9. 25. Plaintiff has not challenged the registered sale deed dated 12.07.1974 and 14.03.1980 by which father - defendant No. 1 had purchased the land from Lalji Parbat and Bhimji Parbat respectively. There is no evidence on record to show that it is joint Hindu Property whereas, it is crystal clear from the evidence on record that it was self - acquired property of defendant No. 1 Natha Harji Halai. 26. It is pertinent to note that plaintiff is not claiming any share from the above suit property. Plaintiff is also not praying for possession of the land and she is only praying o cancel the sale deed. As per the provision of law, if plaintiff is not praying for possession of land and only prays for a declaration, then such suit is not maintainable in the eye of law. 27. Original defendant Nos. 10 to 12 are the bona fide purchasers as they have purchased the land by giving public notice and examining the revenue record. They have purchased the land and thereafter the land was converted into non-agricultural use. The other land bearing Survey No. 41/p/1 addmeasuring Hectare 2.37 was merged with the suit land and Survey No.40 was given. 10 to 12 are the bona fide purchasers as they have purchased the land by giving public notice and examining the revenue record. They have purchased the land and thereafter the land was converted into non-agricultural use. The other land bearing Survey No. 41/p/1 addmeasuring Hectare 2.37 was merged with the suit land and Survey No.40 was given. Thereafter, original defendant Nos.10 to 12 have divided the land into 300 plots and around 103 sale deeds have been executed to several service class and middle class people and Suit proceedings is continued, then, not only defendant Nos. 10 to 12 but other bona fide purchasers would also suffer immense hardship and irreparable loss. Therefore, considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and the settled proposition of law, the present First Appeal may kindly be dismissed in the interest of justice. 11. Learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 10 to 12 has relied upon following judgments in support of his submission :- S.NO. Particulars 1. (1973) 2 SCC 60 Ram Saran and Anr. V. Smt. Ganga Devi 2. (2012) 8 SCC 148 (Para 56) Union of India V. Ibrahim Uddin and Anr. 3. (2017) 3 SCC 702 (Para 34, 35 Executive Officer, Arulmigu Chokkanath Swamy Koil Trust, Virudhunagar V. Chandran and Ors. 4. (1977) 4 SCC 467 (Para 5 and 6) T. Arivandandam V. T.V. Satyapal and Ors. 5. (2004) 3 SCC 137 (Para 20) Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and Ors. V. Assistant Charity Commissioner and Ors. 6. 2012 (8) SCC 706 (Para 6, 7, 8, 9, 17 and 21) Chruch of Crist Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society V. Ponniamman Educational Trust 12. It is luminous from the perusal of the impugned order that the learned trial judge has rejected the plaint on the ground that the plaint does not show any cause of action. In this connection it would be useful to refer to the provisions of order 7 Rule 11 of the Code, which reads as infra:- "11. It is luminous from the perusal of the impugned order that the learned trial judge has rejected the plaint on the ground that the plaint does not show any cause of action. In this connection it would be useful to refer to the provisions of order 7 Rule 11 of the Code, which reads as infra:- "11. Rejection of plaint-The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:- (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; (e) where it is not filed in duplicate; (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9;] [Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by cause of an exceptional nature for correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.]" 13. It is thus vividly clear from the aforesaid provision that the Court can reject the plaint where it does not disclose the cause of action that the power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code can be exercised at any stage of the suit either before registering the plaint or after the issuance of summons to the defendants or at any time before the conclusion of the trial. 14. It is trite law that in order to consider Order VII, Rule 11, THE Court has to look into the averments in the plaint and the same can be exercised by the trial Court at any stage of the suit. 14. It is trite law that in order to consider Order VII, Rule 11, THE Court has to look into the averments in the plaint and the same can be exercised by the trial Court at any stage of the suit. It is also clear that the averments in the written statement are immaterial and it is the duty of the Court to scrutinize the averments/pleas in the pliant. In other words, what needs to be looked into in deciding such an application are the averments in the plaint. At that stage, the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement are wholly irrelevant and the matter is to be decided only on the pliant averments. 15. The respondent No.10 to 12 submitted application exhibit-60 under Order VII Rule 11 for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation, that it suffers from res-judiceta and that no cause of action can be said to have accrued in favour of the appellant as no documentary evidence is produced on record to show that the subject land was ancestral. The learned trial Judge found that the suit of the appellant cannot be said to have been barred by Limitation Act or hit by res-judiceta to impressed by the contention that no cause of action can be said to have accrued in favour of the appellant plaintiff as no documentary shown to indicate that the suit land were ancestral and accordingly dismissed the suit on the ground that it does not disclose cause of action. 16. The appellant instituted the suit with specific averments that the suit lands are ancestral and the respondent No.1 herein who happens to be her father had no authority to deal with the subject lands without the overt consent of the appellant who has share therein as per the Hindu Succession Act. The perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned trial Judge has chosen to reject the plaint on the ground that no cause of action can be said to have been accrued in favour of the appellant as she has not produced any revenue record to indicate that the subject lands are ancestral. The perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned trial Judge has chosen to reject the plaint on the ground that no cause of action can be said to have been accrued in favour of the appellant as she has not produced any revenue record to indicate that the subject lands are ancestral. At this stage, it needs to be noted that Dinesh Dhanji Halai, who is the son of respondent No.3 herein (brother of the appellant) has filed Regular Civil Suit No.544 of 2008 in which the appellant is defendant No.16 for partition of the suit lands which is still pending in the trial Court. Wherein the evidence would have to be adduced to show that the suit lands are ancestral. But, at the same time the learned trial Judge has found that the suit suffers from lack of cause of action as the appellant has not produced revenue record to show that the suit lands are ancestral. We are, therefore, of the opinion that findings recorded by the learned trial Judge to conclude that there is no cause of action are contradictory. The learned trial Judge has rightly recorded the conclusion for discarding the contentions of the respondent No.1 to 10 that the suit is to hit of res-judiceta on the ground of pendency of Regular Civil Suit No.544 of 2008 as Revenue Entries do not confer any ownership right and they are meant for fiscal purpose. As per the settled proposition of law the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code required to be considered on the basis of averments made in the plaint. The appellant has, in our view, made sufficient averments in the plaint to seek the injunction against the respondent on the ground of that the subject land being ancestral. The plaintiff has backed the averment by producing the sale deed dated 12.06.1974 and 14.03.1980 in respect of the subject land executed between respondent No.1 and Lalji Parbat Halai and respondent No.1 and Bhimji Parbat Halai respectively. Lalji Parbat Halai happens to be brother of respondent No.1 while Bhimji Parbat Halai is the nephew of respondent No.1. The learned trial Judge has unfortunately in the impugned order has not at all adverted to the contents of the said sale deeds wherein there is a reference that the land was of the ownership of the grand-father of the plaintiff. The learned trial Judge has unfortunately in the impugned order has not at all adverted to the contents of the said sale deeds wherein there is a reference that the land was of the ownership of the grand-father of the plaintiff. The assertion of the appellant that the lands purchased by the forefather from HUF money is matter of the evidence which can only be decide at the time of the trial, when there is enough prima facie evidence on the record to put the suit to trial for deciding whether the suit properties are ancestral or not. In our considered view the learned trial judge could not have dismissed the suit as having not disclosing the cause of action without affording an opportunity to the appellant to prove her case by putting the suit to trial. The contention on behalf of the contesting respondent that the suit is not maintainable as the suit is simplicitor for declaration without seeking possession is not maintainable in view of Section 42 of Specific Relief Act cannot be countenanced and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Saran and Anr. V. Smt. Ganga Devi, (1973) 2 SCC 60 and in the case of Union of India V. Ibrahim Uddin and Anr., (2012) 8 SCC 148 has no application to the facts of the present case as Regular Civil Suit No.544 of 2008 for seeking partition is pending the trial Court. 17. We are also not impressed by the submission that it is an admitted fact that the respondent No.1 had purchased the land from Lalji Parbat uncle and Bhimji Parbat uncle and was exclusive owner of the suit land and the suit lands were running in the name of respondent No.1 alone since 1974-1980 for the simple reason that it is the specific case of the appellant that these lands were ancestral and the perusal of the sale deed of 1974-1980 also have some indication that these suit lands were ancestral. We are, therefore, of the opinion that only because the suit lands stood in the name of the respondent No.1 at the time of filing of the suit on the basis of the sale deeds per-se cannot be a ground to non-suit the appellant without trial of the suit by rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a). We are, therefore, of the opinion that only because the suit lands stood in the name of the respondent No.1 at the time of filing of the suit on the basis of the sale deeds per-se cannot be a ground to non-suit the appellant without trial of the suit by rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a). The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Executive Officer, Arulmigu Chokkanatha Swamy Koil Trust, Udhunagar v. Chandran and others, (2017) 3 SCC 702 has no application to the facts of the present case. 18. A cause of action means every fact, which if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the court. In other words, it is a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. It must include some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such an act no cause of action can possibly accrue. It is not limited to the actual infringement of the right sued on but includes all the material facts on which it is founded. It does not comprise evidence necessary to prove such facts, but every fact necessary for the plaintiff to prove to enable him to obtain a decree. Everything which if not proved would give the defendant a right to immediate judgment must be part of the cause of action. But it has no relation whatever to the defence which may be set up by the defendant nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff. (See : A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. A.P. Agencies, Salem, (1989) 2 SCC 163 ). 19. We are of the view that the learned trial Judge has not considered the plaint as a whole in a holistic manner to find out whether it discloses the cause of action or not. It seems to us that the learned trial Judge shall swayed away by the submission of the learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 9 to 12 that the appellant has not produced any revenue record to show that the subject lands were ancestral. It seems to us that the learned trial Judge shall swayed away by the submission of the learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 9 to 12 that the appellant has not produced any revenue record to show that the subject lands were ancestral. And the learned trial Judge has not at all adverted to the averments made in the plaint and has not offered any findings/reasons as to how the reading the plaint as a whole does not disclose the cause of action in favour of the appellant to file the suit. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained. 20. In view of the aforegoing, the appeal needs to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 9th April, 2015 passed by learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kutch Bhuj in Special Civil Suit No.111 of 2011 below exhibit-60 is hereby quashed and set aside. 21. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are for the purpose of deciding the present appeal alone which would not come in the way of the learned trial judge in deciding the suit independently strictly in accordance with law and the documentary and oral evidence that may be adduced by the parties. 22. In the facts of the case, partier are left to bear their own costs. 23. The Appeal from Order No. 8 of 2012 and Special Civil Application No. 5746 of 2014 are segregated from this appeal and are ordered to be listed before the appropriate Court as per the roaster. 1. After the judgment is pronounced, Mr. Mehulsharad Shah, learned advocate for respondent Nos. 10 to 12 urged that the implementation of the judgment may be stayed for 10 weeks to enable the respondents to challenge it before higher Court. 2. Mr. Dipak Shah, learned advocate for the appellant strongly objected to the request of Mr. Shah, learned advocate for respondents. 3. In facts of the case, we deem it fit to stay the implementation of judgment for six weeks. 4. The Registry shall irrespective of the stay of the judgment placed Appeal from Order No. 8 of 2012 and Special Civil Application No. 5746 of 2014 before the appropriate Court as per the roaster for hearing.