C/CRA/415/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 415 of 2025 ================================================================ RAJULBEN SHAILESHBHAI VYAS Versus PRIYADARSHNABEN JAYESHBHAI PANDYA & ORS. ================================================================ Appearance: MS.FALGUNI D.TRIVEDI(3912) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER Date : 01/09/2025 ORAL ORDER 1. The present Revision Application has been filed challenging the order passed by 8th Additional Civil Judge at Rajkot, in Regular Civil Suit No.209 of 2024, whereby the application Exhibit-9, under the provision of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been rejected. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their original status as that in the suit. 3. The brief facts arising in the present Civil Revision Application are that the plaintiffs have filed Civil Suit No.209 of 2021 for cancellation of registered gift deed executed on 21.04.2015. 4. The fact remains that the suit property belonged to the father of the plaintiffs (Maganlal Krushnlal Jani) and the mother of the plaintiffs (Bhanumati Maganlal Jani) and they have purchased the suit property by way of registered sale deed on 11.07.1988. Maganlal Krushanlal Jani and Bhanumati Maganlal Jani have four children, plaintiff Nos.1 & 2 are the daughters of late Maganlal Krushanlal Jani and Bhanumati Maganlal Jani and defendant No.3 is C/CRA/415/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2025 the son of Maganlal Krushanlal Jani and Bhanumati Maganlal Jani. 5. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the mother of the parties to the suit expired on 24.12.2014 and the father of the parties to the present suit expired on 10.03.2019 and during the lifetime of the father, the father had executed a registered gift deed for his 50% share in the suit property in favour of defedant No.1 and as defendant No.1 had filed Civil Suit No.175 of 2021 to claim possession of the suit property from the plaintiff of Civil Suit No.209 of 2021 and the summons of the said suit was served on the present plaintiff that is for the first time when the plaintiff came to know that a gift deed is executed by the father in favour of the defendant No.1, and therefore, the suit is filed by the plaintiff to cancel and declare null and void the gift deed executed on 21.04.2015. 6. 6. The defendant appeared in the said suit and filed an application under the provision of Oder VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure that the suit is hopelessly time barred. The trial Court after hearing the parties and after considering the plaint and documents annexed with the plaint rejected the said application. Hence, the present Revision Application. 7. Learned advocate for the defendant has mainly argued that the suit challenging the registered gift deed on 21.04.2015, was hopelessly time barred, and therefore, the plaintiff could not have C/CRA/415/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2025 filed the suit after the period of limitation. 8. Learned advocate for the defendant has also argued that the plaintiff has challenged the registered gift deed on 16.10.2021, after a period of seven years, and therefore, the plaint is hopelessly time barred and is required to be rejected in view of the above referred fact and the present Revision Application is required to be allowed. 9. Having heard the learned advocate for the defendant and having considered the plaint and the documents annexed with the plaint. The fact remains that the plaintiff has all throughout stated that the plaintiff was not aware of the fact of registered gift deed dated 21.04.2015 and it is only after the Civil Suit No.175 of 2021 was filed and the summons of the said suit were served on the present plaintiff, he came to know about the gift deed, and therefore, the plaintiff challenged the said gift deed. 10. The fact remains that the plaintiff has taken a contention that the plaintiff was not aware of execution of the gift deed and it is only after filing of Civil Suit No.175 of 2021 that the plaintiff came to know about the existance of the gift deed, the plaintiff has challenged the said gift deed. Therefore, the plaintiff has stated that the plaintiff came to know about the gift deed only in the year 2021, and therefore, immediately filed the suit challenging the said gift deed. Page 3 of 5 C/CRA/415/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2025 11. In the present case, while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court will have to examine the averments in the plaint and the plaint is required to be read as a whole and the defence taken by the defendant in written statement or in the application cannot be the basis to decide application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure and in the present case, the gift deed under challenge is dated 21.04.2015, the limitation to challenge the said registered gift deed ordinarily would start running from the date on which the gift deed is registered, however, in the present case, the specific case of the plaintiff is that until 2021 i.e. until the summons of Civil Suit No.175 of 2021 were served on the plaintiff they had no knowledge whatsoever regarding the execution of the said gift deed by their father in favour of the defendant No.1 and as soon as the said fact came to the knowledge of the plaintiff in the year 2021 they received summons of Civil Suit No.175 of 2021 and they have filed the present suit. In the present case, the plaintiff asserts that the suit has been filed immediately after getting knowledge about the gift deed executed by the father of the plaintiff. 12. Moreover, in the present case, if the reliefs that have been sought in the plaint are referred, the fact remains that the father of the plaintiff to the suit was only having 50% share in the property and the gift deed executed by the father in favour of defendant No.1 was also for 50% share which the father owned. With respect to the other 50% share which was owned by the mother of the parties to the C/CRA/415/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2025 suit, who expired on 24.12.2014, the present plaintiffs have also claimed at relief No.(10)(3) for the partition of the suit property. The fact remains that mother of the parties to the suit also had 50% share in the property and there is no documentary evidence or proof by which the said 50% share of the mother’s right in the suit property has been given by gift to defendant No.1 or to any of the other legal heir. Therefore, by virtue of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, the plaintiffs and the defendants being class-I legal heirs they will also be entitled for the share with respect to the right owned by the mother of the parties to the suit. In view of the said fact, the suit cannot be rejected partially, and therefore, relief No.(10)(3) of the plaint cannot be said to be barred by law. In that view of the matter, the present Civil Revision Application required to be rejected and is hereby rejected. (SANJEEV J.THAKER,J) Manoj Kumar Rai Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: MANOJKUMAR RAI(HC01072), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 01/09/2025 18:11:47