JUDGMENT : J.B. PARDIWALA, J. 1. This First Appeal under Section-96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short ‘The C.P.C.’] is at the instance of the original defendants nos.5 and 6 and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26/02/2015 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bardoli in the Special Civil Suit No.1 of 2011. 2. The facts giving rise to this First Appeal may be summarized as under:- 2.1 The respondent no.1 - original plaintiff instituted the Special Civil Suit No.1 of 2011 in the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bardoli and prayed for the following reliefs:- 1. As the registered sale deed No.2560 executed on 15/11/2010 by the respondents nos.1 to 4 in favour of respondents nos.5 - 6 is without my consent though I am a member of the joint family and as the sale deed does not bear my signature, it is void ab initio. Therefore, declare that as I - the plaintiff possess and occupy the said property and as the possession of this property has not been handed over to respondents nos.5 - 6, this sale deed is null and void. 2. Pass decree declaring the sale-deed dated 15/11/2010 void as it is unlawful and without consideration and not enforceable. 3. Pass permanent injunction order against the respondents that they shall not cause any damage or harm to the sugarcane crop, farm house, agricultural equipments, tractor, trailer etc and trees and greenery and shall not cause any hindrance or obstacle in my possession and shall not alienate my possession without following due legal procedure. 4. Pass permanent injunction order against the respondents that they shall not carry out or enter into any transactions of sale, gift, lease or any other kind with respect to this property. 5. Pass permanent injunction order against the respondents that they shall not forcibly drive me - the plaintiff out from the suit property without following due legal procedure. 6. Declare that the sale deed, executed by respondent no. 1 to 4 with respect to the undivided property without demarcation of share on actual spot and without obtaining permission of block division of the suit property, is unlawful and it is not binding to me - the plaintiff. 7. Declare that till the suit property is divided and demarcation of boundary is done, the respondent no. 1 to 4 with respect to the undivided property without demarcation of share on actual spot and without obtaining permission of block division of the suit property, is unlawful and it is not binding to me - the plaintiff. 7. Declare that till the suit property is divided and demarcation of boundary is done, the respondent no. 5 and 6 are not entitled to get possession from me - the plaintiff. 8. Order the respondents to pay the cost of this suit. 2.2 In the very same suit filed by the respondent no.1, the appellants herein and the other defendants preferred a counter claim. The counter claim and the reliefs prayed in the counter claim reads thus: Counter claim of Respondent No. 1 to 6 in this case is as follows. Counter claim of the Respondents against the Plaintiff in this suit is as follows. This counter claim is separate and in addition to the contentions and prayers raised in the reply of the Respondent and it may be considered to be in addition to the reply filed in this suit. Counter claim on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 is as follows. (1) A suit has been filed by the Plaintiff in connection with the land situated at Moje Village Mota, Taluka Bardoli, bearing Account No. 811, Block No. 68, Survey No. 42, 43, 45, admeasuring Hectare 6-73 Aare 81 Sq.mt, Aakar Rs.69.60 and we the Respondents have filed a reply for the same. The said disputed land bearing Block No. 68, which is a very fertile and cultivable land from the very beginning, is our ancestral property. We Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are also the joint owners of the said land and we the Respondents and Plaintiff are the co-sharers of the said land. The said land has not been partitioned. We the Respondents are entitled to receive total 80% share of the said disputed land. (2) Father of the Plaintiff and Respondent was farming and cultivating the said disputed land till he died in the year 1997 and thereafter, the said land was given for cultivation to our relative of Kharvasa and he cultivated the said land for about three to four years. (2) Father of the Plaintiff and Respondent was farming and cultivating the said disputed land till he died in the year 1997 and thereafter, the said land was given for cultivation to our relative of Kharvasa and he cultivated the said land for about three to four years. Thereafter, as financial condition of Dilipbhai was not good and he was facing difficulty in maintaining his family and as Respondent No. 2 was an old-aged widow, the Plaintiff and Respondent No. 2 in this suit had been cultivating the said land having joint ownership of all of us, so that it would be helpful for them. But as per the oral agreement with the Plaintiff, it was decided that the share of the Respondents in the proceeds from the said land may be given to our mother Revaben and accordingly, the Plaintiff in this case had given accounts of the yields for one or two years in the beginning. Thereafter, the Plaintiff had been delaying in giving accounts of the yields from the land by showing various excuses. (3) The Plaintiff in this case has been living in a foreign country for the last two to three years and we all the relatives got together and thought about selling out the said disputed property, wherein the Plaintiff himself was also present. At that time, an oral agreement took place between us the Respondents and the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff had given consent for the same. Therefore, we Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 had decided to sell out our share in the said land to Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, but later on, the Plaintiff changed his mind. Therefore, as the said land was neither divided nor the share thereof was given to us, we Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 had to sell out our share of 80% of the said land to Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 by registered sale deed, as the last option. Thus, we the Respondents have sold out our undivided 80% share of the disputed land to Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 by registered sale deed after taking the consideration for the same. We the Respondents, being the owner of the said property, have sold out our share and such transaction of sale has been done with knowledge and consent of the Plaintiff. 5 and 6 by registered sale deed after taking the consideration for the same. We the Respondents, being the owner of the said property, have sold out our share and such transaction of sale has been done with knowledge and consent of the Plaintiff. We the Respondents have not sold out the share of the Plaintiff and in these circumstances, the sale deed executed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 is true and correct. As we Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have purchased 80% undivided share of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 on 15/11/2010 by executing registered sale deed No. 2560, we Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are also the owner of the said property. The plaintiff of this case, with mala fide intention to not give the share to the respondents, though the respondents are the true owners of the property and with intention to not give the yield out of the property, has filed false criminal complaint against us whenever we demanded our shares. The plaintiff has filed the present false suit as an owner against the respondents in order to usurp the property alone and to not give our share and to get sympathy of the Hon’ble Court. As stated by the plaintiff, the respondent no.1 to 4 have requested to the plaintiff frequently to give them their share in the property but due to rise in the price of the said land, his intention changed and therefore, though we, the respondents are the joint owners of the said land, he has filed this false suit to prevent us from entering and enjoying our share in the said land. Therefore, we - the respondents also have to file counter claim for declaration and partition regarding property of Block No.68 and for permanent injunction that the plaintiff or any other person, do not transfer or assign and do not prevent us from entering and enjoying our rights in the said property. Therefore, we - the respondents also have to file counter claim for declaration and partition regarding property of Block No.68 and for permanent injunction that the plaintiff or any other person, do not transfer or assign and do not prevent us from entering and enjoying our rights in the said property. (4) Cause of this counter claim: The plaintiff of this case was delaying to give our share in the said property in order to usurp the same on various excuses and was not taking any decision and as a last option, as per the oral understanding took place between the plaintiff and respondents, we sold our 80% share to the respondent no.5 and 6 under the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff and thereafter, the plaintiff changed his mind and preferred the present suit as if he is sole owner of the said land and to deprive us from enjoying our rights in the said land. Therefore, this counter claim is filed within limitation along with reply of the suit. (5) As the present counter claim is for declaration, permanent injunction and partition, estimate of the suit is considered at Rs.16,17,200/- and accordingly, court fee stamp of Rs.31,390/- is affixed on it and as the subject land is agricultural land, its revenue assessment is estimated as 1392/- for twenty putts considering Rs.69.60 per putt and therefore, court fee stamp of Rs.200/- is affixed on it. Moreover, as this suit is for declaration and permanent injunction, estimating it of Rs.1000/-, court fee stamp of Rs.100/- is affixed on it. Thus, this counter claim is filed affixing total court fee stamp of Rs.31,690/-. (6) This counter claim is based on the documents produced by the respondents. (7) The respondents have right to file this counter claim as the plaintiff has filed false suit making false representation regarding suit property. (8) The respondents pray that:- (1) To declare that, the suit-land situated in block No.68 of mouje: Mota is jointly owned as ancestral property of the respondents Nos.1 to 4 and the Plaintiff, and 80% of the undivided share has been continued in the name of we-the respondents by virtue of co-sharer of this property. (2) We, the respondents Nos.1 to 4 have sold our 80% undivided share of the disputed land to the respondents Nos.5 and 6 through a Registered Sale Deed. (2) We, the respondents Nos.1 to 4 have sold our 80% undivided share of the disputed land to the respondents Nos.5 and 6 through a Registered Sale Deed. Hence, be pleased to declare that, the said sale is legal. (3) Be pleased to divide the 80% undistributed share of the disputed land situated in Block No.68 of Motani village continued in the name of Respondents Nos.1 to 4 and direct to hand over its possession in favour of Respondents Nos.5 and 6. (4) Be pleased to declare that, we-Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 are the owners of the land in dispute as we have purchased 80% of the undistributed share of the land of Respondents Nos.1 to 4 through Registered Sale Deed on 15/11/2010 and also direct to hand over the possession of said land to Respondent No.5 and 6 after getting it apportioned. (5) To pass the permanent injunction order that, the Plaintiff of this case shall not transfer, assign or cause to transfer, assign the disputed land of block No.68 and shall not obstruct or cause to obstruct we-Respondents entering this land. (6) Considering the overall factual scenario of the suit, the Hon’ble Court may deem it fit to grant further relief/s; over and above the relief prayed for in the suit. (7) Order the plaintiff to pay the cost of this suit. 2.3 The Civil Court upon final adjudication of the suit as well as the counter claim, passed the following final order. :: FINAL ORDER :: “The Suit of the Plaintiff and Counter Claim of the Defendants is partly allowed. The sale deed no. 2560, produced vide exhibit no. 186, executed by Defendants nos.1 to 4 in favour of Defendants nos.5 and 6 on 15/11/2010 is held null and void. As document at exhibit no. 186 is held null and void, Defendants nos.5 and 6 are permanently restrained from causing any kind of obstruction to the Plaintiff and Defendants nos.1 to 4 in the suit property based on the aforesaid document or making any kind of transaction in respect of the said property. It is held that the suit land bearing block no. 68, situated at mouje Mota, Taluka Bardoli, District Surat, is undivided land of the joint family, and the Plaintiff and Defendants nos.1 to 4 are holding joint share therein. It is held that the suit land bearing block no. 68, situated at mouje Mota, Taluka Bardoli, District Surat, is undivided land of the joint family, and the Plaintiff and Defendants nos.1 to 4 are holding joint share therein. Therefore, Plaintiff and Defendants nos.1 to 4 are ordered to maintain status quo in respect of the aforesaid suit land untill aforesaid land is apportioned as per the law. As Suit and Count Claim have been disposed of as per aforesaid order, the order dated 22/03/2013 passed in connection with the application of the Plaintiff under exhibit no.5 shall be deemed to be disposed of. Parties to bear the cost of the suit and counter claim.” 2.4 Thus, it appears from the materials on record that the dispute between the parties is with respect to an agricultural land bearing Khata No.811, Block No.68, Survey Nos.42, 43 and 45 situated at Village-Mota, Taluka Bardoli. The land was originally owned by Kalyanbhai Premabhai Patel. Kalyanbhai Premabhai Patel passed away on 21/10/1997. The respondent no.1 - original plaintiff and the respondents nos.2 to 5 - original defendants nos.1 to 4 are the children of Late Kalyanbhai Premabhai Patel. It is the case of the original plaintiff that the suit-property is an undivided ancestral property. On demise of Kalyanbhai Premabhai Patel, his children are now the owners of the land by way of succession. It appears that the respondent no.1 - original plaintiff is residing in the United States of America. The original defendants nos.1 to 4 are also residing outside India. The original defendants nos.1 to 4 transferred their undivided share in the suit-property in favour of the appellants herein by way of a registered sale-deed bearing registration no.2560, Exh.186, dated 15/11/2010. The plaintiff instituted the suit against his two brothers and two sisters redressing the grievance that as the suit-property has not been partitioned in accordance with law and in metes and bounds, the defendants nos.1 to 4 could not have transferred their undivided share in the suit-property in favour of the appellants herein. It is the case of the plaintiff that without his consent, such a sale-deed could not have been executed by the defendants nos.1 to 4 in favour of the defendants nos.5 and 6. 2.5 The Civil Court framed the following issues vide Exh.16. 1. It is the case of the plaintiff that without his consent, such a sale-deed could not have been executed by the defendants nos.1 to 4 in favour of the defendants nos.5 and 6. 2.5 The Civil Court framed the following issues vide Exh.16. 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the disputed property is the property owned by undivided family in joint name by the plaintiff and the respondents? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that there is no signature of the plaintiff on sale deed no.2560 executed on 15/11/2010 by the respondents nos.1 to 4 in favour of respondents nos.5 - 6 and as it is not binding to the plaintiff, therefore, this sale deed is ab initio void? 3. Whether the plaintiff proves that he has possession of the disputed lands and the possession of the property has not been handed over to anyone? 4. Whether the plaintiff proves that the respondents are not entitled to get the possession of the property? 5. Whether the plaintiff proves that this suit is not barred by the Limitation Act? 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get relief as prayed in para - 16? 7. Whether the respondents nos.1 to 4 prove that they have 80% share in the disputed land?