M.R. Shah, J.

1. Present Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the appellant herein "original plaintiff to quash and set aside the impugned Judgment and order dtd.20/9/2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Banaskantha-Deesa in Regular Civil Appeal No. 77 of 1999, by which the learned appellate court has dismissed the said appeal confirming the Judgment and decree dtd.30/9/1999 passed by the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge (SD), Palanpur in Regular Civil Suit No. 59 of 1986, by which the learned trial court has dismissed the said suit.

2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the present Second Appeal is nothing but abuse of process of Court and Court proceedings by the appellant and last attempt on the part of the appellant to avoid the order passed by the authority under the provisions of Gujarat Agricultural Lands (Ceiling) Act and to avoid handing over the possession of the lands which had been declared excess/surplus under the provisions of the Agricultural Lands (Ceiling) Act as far as back in the year 1985.

3. The disputed lands in question were of the ownership of the father of the appellant herein "original plaintiff and thereafter on the death of her father, it was in the name of her brother Ravjibhai. It is to be noted that the father of the appellant died in the year 1967 and on his death, the lands were mutated in the name of her brother Ravjibhai in the year 1969 vide mutation entry No. 68. It is to be noted and it is an admitted position that at the relevant time the statement of the very appellant" original plaintiff was recorded by the revenue authorities relinquishing her right in the lands in question by the appellants in favour of her brother and thereafter the aforesaid lands in question came to be continued in the name of her brother Ravjibhai and her brother was in exclusive ownership and possession of the disputed lands in question till he died in the year 1974 and thereafter by his heirs i.e. widows and minor. That the lands in question were subjected to the provisions of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands (Ceiling) Act and widow of Ravjibhai filled in necessary Forms as required under Section 10 of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands (Ceiling) Act declaring herself to be the absolute owner of the lands in question. That the Mamlatdar and ALT processed the declaration/form submitted by the widow of Ravjibhai and declared 38 Acres and 33 Gunthas of land from the land bearing Survey No. 90 as excess surplus land under the provisions of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands (Ceiling) Act. That against the order passed by the Mamlatdar declaring the aforesaid land as excess land under the provisions of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands (Ceiling) Act, the declarant - widow of Ravjibhai preferred Appeal No. 13 of 1982 before the Dy. Collector, Tharad and the Dy. Collector, Tharad dismissed the said appeal, against which the widow of Ravjibhai i.e. Punjiben "original defendant No. 3 preferred Revision Application before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by the Judgment and order dtd.8/4/1985 remanded the matter to the Mamlatdar only for the purpose of giving choice to the declarant i.e. Punjiben with respect to which portion of land she wants to retain and which portion of the land she wants to handover and the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal confirmed the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT declaring the aforesaid land as excess vacant land under the provisions of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands (Ceiling) Act. Only thereafter when the declarant" original owner lost upto the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, at that stage the appellant herein "original plaintiff instituted Regular Civil Suit 59 of 1986 in the court of learned Civil Judge (SD), Palanpur for declaration and permanent injunction declaring that the plaintiff is the owner of the land admeasuring 46 Acres and 16.1/2 Gunthas of land and to declare that the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT declaring 38 Acres and 33 Gunthas of land as excess under the Gujarat Agricultural Lands (Ceiling) Act is not binding to her and consequently the Mamlatdar and ALT be restrained permanently from taking the possession of the land admeasuring 38 Acres and 33 Gunthas of land which is declared as excess vacant land under provisions of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands (Ceiling) Act. In the said suit the plaintiff joined widow of Ravjibhai i.e. heir of his brother Ravjibhai as well as Mamlatdar and ALT (Ceiling) Vav. That the learned trial court framed necessary issues at Ex.19 and on appreciation of evidence and after giving an opportunity to the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, the learned trial court held that the plaintiff has no right, title and interest in the lands in question and that the suit has been filed with malafide intention only to avoid handing over possession of the land in question, which is declared as excess vacant land under the provisions of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands (Ceiling) Act and that even otherwise the suit is barred by Section 47. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dtd.30/9/1999 passed by the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge (SD), Palanpur in Regular Civil Suit No. 59 of 1986 dismissing the suit, the appellant herein" original plaintiff preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 77 of 1999 before the learned District Court, Palanpur which came to be dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Banaskantha-Deesa by the impugned Judgment and order dtd.20/9/2007 confirming the Judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court dismissing the suit. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Judgment and decree passed by both the courts below, the appellant herein "original plaintiff has preferred the present Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

4. Mr. Vipul Modi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant - original plaintiff has vehemently submitted that both the courts below have materially erred in relying upon the mutation entry No. 68 and the statement made by the appellant in the year 1969 relinquishing her right from the lands in question in favour of her brother Ravjibhai. It is submitted that both the courts below ought to have appreciated that even if such a statement was made by the appellant before the revenue authorities relinquishing her right in favour of her brother, the same was hit by the provisions of the Registration Act. It is further submitted that both the courts below ought to have appreciated that by such a statement, without following any requirement of Registration Act, such a relinquishment of right by the plaintiff in favour of her brother was not permissible. It is submitted that if any immovable property is required to be transferred, the same must be in writing and must be registered as required under Section 17 of the Registration Act and such an oral transfer is not permissible and the same is hit by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act also. Therefore, it is submitted that both the courts below have materially erred in relying upon the statement made by the appellant before the revenue authorities relinquishing her right in favour of her brother Ravjibhai, while dismissing the suit and denying the right in favour of the appellant. It is submitted that, as such, the requirement of registration is not only for the benefit of the party but public at large and to avoid social evil and therefore, statutory requirement of registration cannot be waived by a party. It is further submitted that a mutation entry in the revenue records on the basis of the statement made by the appellant cannot create or relinquish a vested right. It is submitted that, as such, statement made by the appellant "original plaintiff made in the year 1969 can be said to be an arrangement for the management of the lands in question and cannot be said to be waiving ownership right in the lands. It is further submitted that though a specific issue was not framed with respect to waiver, the learned appellate court has dismissed the appeal on the ground of waiver considering the statement made by the appellant before the revenue authorities relinquishing her right in favour of her brother Ravjibhai.

5. By making above submissions it is requested to allow the present Second Appeal.

6. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, more particularly learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant original plaintiff, at length.

7. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the father of the appellant expired in the year 1967. He was survived by his son "Ravji Jama and the appellant" original plaintiff. That on the death of her father, by mutation entry No. 68 and recording the statement made by the appellant herein "original plaintiff relinquishing her right in the lands in question in favour of her brother Ravji Jama, the lands were mutated in the name of her brother Ravji Jama. That thereafter till death of Ravji Jama, the said lands came to be continued in occupation and possession of said Ravji Jama, who died in the year 1974. That on the death of Ravji Jama in the year 1974, the lands were mutated in the name of heir of Ravji Jama. On coming into force of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands (Ceiling) Act, two widows of deceased brother of the appellant filed declaration / form under Section 10 declaring all the lands which were in their name declaring that they are the exclusive owners of the entire lands. The Mamlatdar and ALT held and declared 38 Acres and 33 Gunthas of land as excess surplus land in the Ceiling Case No. 1992 of 1985-86. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Mamlatdar declaring 38 Acres and 33 Gunthas of land as excess/surplus land, the original declaration" two widow of deceased brother of the appellant preferred appeal before the Dy.Collector, which came to be dismissed, against which Revision Application was preferred before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal confirmed the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT declaring 38 Acres and 33 Acres of land as surplus land, however, remanded the matter only for the purpose of giving choice to the said declarant for surrendering the land. The Gujarat Revenue Tribunal passed the order in the year 1985 and at that stage and only after the two widows of deceased brother of the appellant lost upto Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, the appellant herein "original plaintiff instituted Regular Civil Suit 59 of 1986 for a declaration that she has right, title and interest in the suit lands which was wrongly considered to be of the exclusive ownership of her brother" Ravjibhai Jamabhai alone and claiming that she has a right in the properties under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. It is to be noted that and as stated above, the father of the plaintiff died in the year 1967 and name of Ravji Jama was mutated in the revenue record in the year 1969 by Mutation Entry No. 68 and even her brother Ravji Jama died in the year 1974 and till 1985, the widows fought litigations upto Gujarat Revenue Tribunal under the provisions of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands (Ceiling) Act and till then the appellant herein "original plaintiff did not claim any right, title or interest in the suit land and as stated above, only after the widows lost upto Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, only with a view to help them and with view to see that they are not required to hand over the possession of the lands which were declared as surplus land under the provisions of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands (Ceiling) Act, the appellant herein "original plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit, which is rightly dismissed by the learned trial court and confirmed by the learned appellate court.

8. It is required to be noted that so far as the appellant is concerned, admittedly she has made a statement before the revenue authorities in the year 1969 relinquishing her right in the land in question in favour of her brother Ravji Jama and on the basis of that, Mutation Entry 68 was made in the revenue record and the name of Ravji Jama was mutated in the revenue record and thereafter, on his death the name of heirs of Ravji Jama were mutated.

9. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has fairly conceded that as such the appellant "original plaintiff is not disputing the statement made by the appellant before the revenue authorities relinquishing her right in favour of her brother Ravji Jama.

10. In view of the above, at least the said statement made by the appellant before the revenue authorities relinquishing her rights in the suit land is binding to the appellant and she is estopped from contending contrary to her statement made by her before the revenue authorities in the year 1969.

11. The contention on behalf of the appellant "original plaintiff that as the relinquishment of by the appellant of her right in the year 1969 was not in writing and the same was not registered as required under Section 17 of the Registration Act, it cannot be said that the appellant has waived her right in the suit lands, is concerned, the same cannot be accepted. The plaintiff cannot be permitted to take the benefit of her own wrong.

12. The contention on behalf of the appellant that at the most the statement made by the appellant before the revenue authorities in the year 1969 can be said to be an arrangement for the management of the lands in question is concerned, the said contention also cannot be accepted. It is the appellant who made statement before the revenue authorities voluntarily relinquishing her right from the suit land in favour of her brother Ravji Jama and she accepted the same till 1986 i.e. till the suit is filed by the appellant herein "original plaintiff and till then no steps were taken by the appellant claiming any right, title or interest in the suit land in question. Nothing is on record that it was for management only. On the contrary, the statement shows otherwise.

13. Even otherwise, as observed by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Kale and Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Ors. reported in : AIR 1976 SC 807 [LQ/SC/1976/20] even a family arrangement may be oral and in each case no registration is necessary. As observed by the Honble Supreme Court, registration would be necessary only if the terms of the family arrangement are reduced in writing. In any case, the appellant cannot be permitted to take the benefit of her own wrong and now to contend that though she has made statement in the year 1969 relinquishing her right in the suit land in favour of her brother Ravji Jama which continued upto 1986, the same shall not be binding to her as the same was not in writing and registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act. It is required to be noted that even the suit in question has been instituted by the appellant "original plaintiff in the year 1986 claiming right in the suit land in question on the death of her father who died in the year 1967 and even her brother also died in the year 1974. The stage/time at which the appellant - original plaintiff has instituted the suit in the year 1986 also deserve to be considered. As stated above, only when the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal held against the widows of her brother Ravji Jama and when they lost before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and when they were required to hand over the possession of excess land under the provisions of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands (Ceiling) Act, at that stage the plaintiff has instituted the suit claiming her right in the suit land, and that itself is suggestive of the fact that the suit has been instituted only with a malafide intention and in collusion with the other private defendants, only with a view to avoid execution and handing over the possession of the excess land which is declared surplus in the year 1981 which confirmed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in the year 1985.

14. It is also required to be noted that as such the plaintiff has challenged the order passed by the authorities under the provisions of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands (Ceiling) Act, however, as rightly held and observed by both the courts below, the suit challenging the order passed under the provisions of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands (Ceiling) Act is barred by Section 47 of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands (Ceiling) Act.

15. Now, the contention on behalf of the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that the learned appellate court has materially erred in dismissing he appeal on the ground of waiver of right by the appellant - plaintiff without framing of the issues is concerned, it is to be noted that on the basis of the material on record and the facts narrated hereinabove, the learned appellate court while dismissing the appeal has observed that in view of the statement made by the appellant before the revenue authorities relinquishing her right in the land in question favour of her brother Ravji Jam, it can also be said that the appellant has waived her right. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the learned appellate court has committed any error in holding same.

16. Under the circumstances and for the reasons stated above, there is no substance in the present Second Appeal, which deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, Civil Application for stay is also dismissed. Notice is discharged.