Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The   present   petitioners   initially   claimed   to   have   also  received the same land under a Will dated 07.12.2011 of  3 of 11 C/CRA/196/2014 JUDGMENT Naranbhai   but   later   on,   claimed   that   after   Naranbhai's  demise they had purchased the land from his legal heirs  with   proper   sanction   from   the   competent   authority.  Initially,   these   petitioners   were   not   parties   to   the   suit  proceedings.   At   their   instance,   they   were   joined   as  defendants No. 14 and 15. On the premise that a tribal  cannot transfer his immovable property through a Will in  view of the restrictions contained in Section 73AA of the  Gujarat   Land   Revenue   Code,   they   moved   application  Exhibit 34 before the Trial Court seeking rejection of the  plaint   under   Order   7   Rule   11   Clause   D.     On   such  application   the   Trial   Court   passed   the   impugned   order  inter   alia   observing   that   if   the   Will   in   favour   of   the  plaintiffs is in breach of Section 73AA of the Gujarat Land  Revenue Code, one claimed by the defendants No. 14 and  15 would also be hit by the same provision. The Court  also   observed   that   there   was   breach   of   Section   73AA  insofar   as   the   transaction   in   favour   of   the   plaintiffs   is  concerned,   however,   the   question   of   forcible  dispossession of the plaintiffs would still survive and that  therefore,  the  suit  cannot  be   dismissed.  It  is  this  order  which the defendants No. 14 and 15 have challenged in  this revision application.

3. Learned   counsel   Mr.   Adil   Mirza   for   the   petitioners  contended that the Trial Court committed a serious error  4 of 11 C/CRA/196/2014 JUDGMENT in   rejecting   the   application   of   the   petitioners   that   too  with a finding that there was a breach of Section 73AA of  the   Gujarat   Land   Revenue   Code.   He   relied   on   the  decision   of  the   Division  Bench   of  this  Court   in  case   of  Shamjibhai Keshavjibhai Kansagra (Patel) & Ors. vs.   Principal  Secretary,  Revenue   Dept   (Appeals)  and   ors.  reported in AIR 2011 Gujarat 55. He also relied on the  decision   in   case   of  Rajenbhai   Baldevbhai   Shah   vs.   Baijiben   Kabhaibhai   Patanvadia  reported   in  2009   2  GLR 1784.

4. On   the   other   hand,   learned   counsel   Mr.   Rao   for   the  original plaintiffs, the present respondents No. 1 and 2  vehemently contended that the defendant Nos. 14 and 15  have been taking inconsistent stand. They also claimed to  have   received   the   same   land   through   a   Will   on   which  basis they were allowed to be joined as defendants in the  suit. In any case, the plaintiffs themselves are tribal. The  question whether by virtue of the Will the transfer of the  property   would   be   hit   by   Section   73AA   of   the   Gujarat  Land Revenue Code would require further consideration.  The Court,  therefore, committed  no error in dismissing  the application for rejection of the plaint.

8. In view of these judicial pronouncements, the conclusion  of the Trial Court that the transaction in favour of the  plaintiffs   was   definitely   hit   by   Section   73AA   of   the  Gujarat Land Revenue Code gets confirmed. Despite such  findings, the Trial Court refused to dismiss the plaint only  on the ground that the question of forcible dispossession  of the plaintiffs' was yet to be decided. In my view, this  was a clear error. Even the plaintiffs have not voiced any  apprehension   of   illegal   or   forcible   dispossession   in   the  suit.   It   is   not   even   the   case   of   the   plaintiffs   that   the  defendants   were   likely   to   take   law   in   their   hands   and  evict them out of the said property. Merely therefore to  survive the suit on this basis, would be to give artificial  life to a litigation which is a dead cause. Order 7 Rule 11  of the Code of Civil Procedure would require the Court to  reject the plaint inter alia when it  does not disclose the  cause   of   action   or   where   the   suit   appears   from   the  statement of the plaint to be barred by any law. When the  very   basis   of   the   plaintiffs'   claim   to   the   suit   property  namely, the Will made by the Tribal is hit by a statutory  restriction, the suit could be stated to  have been lacking  in   disclosure   of   any   cause   of   action.   Learned   counsel  Mr. Rao however drew my attention to sub­section (3) of  Section   73AA   of   the   Gujarat   Land   Revenue   Code   and  9 of 11 C/CRA/196/2014 JUDGMENT contended that since the plaintiffs are also tribal, within  two years, the transferor tribals would have to make an  application for  restoration of  the  possession of  the  suit  land failing which the transfer would continue to operate.  However, this contention ignores the provision of Section  73AC of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, Sub section (1)  whereof   which   provide   that   no   civil   court   shall   have  jurisdiction   to   settle,   decide   or   deal   with   any   question  which   is   by   or   under   Section   73A   or   Section   73AA   or  Section   73AB   required   to   be   settled,   decided   or   dealt  with   by   the   Collector   nor   shall   the   Civil   Court   have  jurisdiction to entertain any suit or application for grant  of injunction in relation to such question.