1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 178 OF 2004 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 178 OF 2004 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 178 OF 2004 Mrs. Surekha Bhaskar Bidwai ..Petitioner Versus Shri Jijaba Tukaram Doke & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. S.A.Sawant, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. P.Bargude, Adviocate, i/b. Mrs. Vinita B.Bakre Shastry, Advocate for Respondents Nos. 1 & 2. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 5th May, 2008. DATE: 5th May, 2008. DATE: 5th May, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are the original plaintiffs and the petitioner is the original defendant No.5 who claims to have purchased certain property from defendants Nos. 1 to 4 under a sale deed for consideration of Rs.2,12,000/-. The plaintiffs filed 2 the suit contending that they have got share in the the joint family property and, therefore, the alleged sale deed is not binding on their share. They also sought perpetual injunction against the defendant No.1 from causing any interference in their joint possession over the property. 3. Defendant no.5 filed an application under Section 9A and Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. contending that the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of jurisdiction and that no cause of action is disclosed. After hearing the parties, the trial Court dismissed the application of defendant No.5. Therefore, the defendant No.5 has preferred the present Revision Application. 4. Perusal of the plaint reveals that plaintiff No.1 claims to be the husband of deceased Thakubai and plaintiff No.2 is their daughter. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are the sisters of Thakubai, while defendant No.4 Bajirao is the son of Thakubai and plaintiff No.1. The property originally belonged to one Bhika Bidwai. He died leaving behind his widow Dhondabai and four daughters including Thakubai. In view of this, after the death of Thakubai, her husband, son and daughter could claim her share in the property. Bajirao alone could not claim whole of the share of Thakubai. 3 Therefore, when the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 4 disposed of the property in favour of defendant no.5 under registered sale deed, the shares of plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 are affected and therefore they have cause of action to file the suit. 5. According to the defendant No.5, she had purchased the property for Rs.2,12,000/- and according to her, the suit should have been valued at Rs.2,12,000/-. This cannot be accepted because the share of the plaintiffs would be less than 1/3rd or even 1/4th. Further, it is agreed that they were not parties to the sale transaction. If somebody has executed certain documents affecting rights of third party, such third party can file suit for declaration simplicitor. I find no substance in the Revision Application. 6. In the result, the Revision Application stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)