Allahabad High Court
Pratap Singh (Since Deceased) And 10 ... vs Ravneet Singh And 54 Others on 7 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD A.F.R. Judgment Reserved on- 17.09.2025 Judgment Delivered on- 07.10.2025 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:176744 Court No. - 38 Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 442 of 2025 Appellant :- Pratap Singh(Since Deceased) & 10 Others Respondent :- Ravneet Singh & 54 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Krishna Mohan Garg, Manu Saxena, Radhamani Saxena Counsel for Respondent :- Anupam Kulshreshtha, Ayub Khan, Saurabh Paul Hon'ble Sandeep Jain, J.
1. The instant appeal under section 96 CPC has been preferred by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 5.5.2025 in O.S. no. 238 of 2022 Pratap Singh and others versus Ravneet Singh and others passed by the court of Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division) Gautam Buddha Nagar whereby, the defendants application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC has been allowed on the ground that the plaintiff 's suit was barred by limitation and consequently, the plaint has been rejected.
2. Factual matrix is that the plaintiff appellants filed O.S. no. 238 of 2022 in the lower court with the averments that the plaintiff 's are the residents of village Kotwalpur, Pargana Loni, District Ghaziabad. The plaintiffs and the defendants-third party are owner in possession of the property which was specified as A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L in red colour in the map annexed with the plaint, the details of which was mentioned in para-2 of the plaint. The predecessors of the plaintiffs Dulichand alias Dulia and Jodha, residents of village Kotwalpur, Pargana Loni, Tehsil Ghaziabad, District Meerut,purchased the property situated in village Namoli,Pargana Dankaur,Tehsil Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahar, now Tehsil Sadar, District Gautam Buddha Nagar, from Sumat Prasad through sale deed dated 3.3.1945, which was registered in book no. 1, Jild no. 546, on pages 72/73, serial no. 228 on 5.3.1945 in the office of sub-registrar, Sikandrabad, Bulandshahar. On the basis of the above sale deed the plaintiffs were claiming ownership of the disputed land.
3. It was further averred by the plaintiffs that their predecessors Dulichand alias Dulia, Premchand, Girwar, Nawal Singh, Jodha Singh, Sahab Singh, Munshi, Mangat and Horam jointly purchased through sale deed dated 3.3.1945 immovable property from Banarsi Das situated in village Namoli, Pargana Dankaur, Tehsil Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahar, which was registered in book no.1, Jild no. 546, pages 70/71, serial no. 227 on 5.3.1945 in the office of sub-registrar, Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahar. On the basis of the above sale deed, the plaintiffs became owner in possession of the 2/9 th share and the defendants third party became the owners in possession of the remaining share in the above immovable property.
4. The plaintiffs further averred that their predecessors and the predecessors of the defendant third-party, after purchasing the above agricultural property, became Bhumidhar under the UPZA & LR Act, who started cultivating it. It was further averred by the plaintiffs that the name of their and defendant third-party's predecessors were mutated in the relevant Khewat/khatauni in Fasli year 1352 1355 vide order dated 26.6.1945 of the court of Niab-Tehsildar, Sikandrabad, on the basis of the above sale deed dated 3.3.1945, and at present the plaintiff and the defendants third-party were in peaceful possession of the above immovable property.
5. It was further averred by the plaintiffs that after the partition of India Pakistan, the predecessors of defendant first party, after being displaced from Pakistan, in the year 1948 came to the predecessors of the plaintiff and defendant third-party and expressed their willingness to work on the agricultural fields in lieu of salary, which was accepted by the predecessors of plaintiff and defendant third-party and as such, Peetam Singh, Sarvan Singh,Harnam Singh, Kishan Singh,etc., were employed on salary for doing agricultural work. It was further averred that the predecessors of the defendant first party honestly and regularly remitted the profits derived from the land, after deducting their salary and expenses, to the predecessors of plaintiff and defendant third-party, and due to this the predecessors of the plaintiff and defendant third-party never doubted their integrity.
6. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that since the predecessors of plaintiff and defendants third-party were simple people, who were not well educated, the predecessors of the defendant first party took undue advantage of this, who in collusion with the Lekhpal during consolidation proceedings, in the Fasli year 1357,1358 and 1359, mutated themselves, their family members and relatives illegally and fradulently, without following due procedure of law, in the revenue records as Sirdar. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that neither any right nor consent was given by the predecessors of the plaintiffs and defendants third-party to the predecessors of the defendant first party to get their name mutated as Sirdar in the disputed property.
7. It was further averred by the plaintiffs that their predecessors and the predecessors of the defendant third-party were informed by their relative Teekam Singh that in village Namoli, the consolidation proceedings ended in the year 1981 and why the cultivators had not informed them, about this. On getting this information, the predecessors of the plaintiffs and defendants third-party became suspicious, who contacted the Lekhpal of village Namoli, who informed them, that in village Namoli no property is standing in their name, all property has been mutated in the name of Sardars. On further enquiry, the predecessors of the plaintiff and defendants third-party became aware that the predecessors of defendants first party had way back in the Fasli year 1357 fraudulently got mutated themselves in the revenue records in collusion with the Lekhpal, but the predecessors of the defendant first party regularly remitted the profits derived from the agricultural land to the predecessors of the plaintiff and defendants third-party, in order to buy time.
8. It was further averred by the plaintiffs that the mutation entry got recorded by the predecessors of the defendant first party during consolidation proceedings in collusion with Lekhpal etc., was void, because it was without the consent of land owner and not on the basis of sale deed, which does not affect the ownership rights of the plaintiffs in the disputed land. It was further averred that the predecessors of the plaintiffs and defendants third-party filed case no. 27 of 1992 Dulichand and others versus Kulwant Singh and others for declaration of their rights under section 229-B of the UPZA & LR Act, in which the defendants in their para-4 of the written statement, accepted that in the kewat by order of Niab-Tehsildar dated 26.6.1945 , the names of the predecessors of the plaintiffs and defendants third-party were mutated and they also accepted that on the basis of sale deed dated 3.3.1945 the plaintiffs were the owners of the disputed property. It was also accepted by them that the predecessors of the plaintiffs and defendants third-party were recorded as Zamindar in the above Kewat, who had obtained land for farming on payment of land revenue. It was the case of the plaintiffs that previously the predecessors of plaintiffs and defendants third party were acknowledged by the predecessors of the defendant first party, as the owner in possession of the disputed property.
9. It was further submitted by the plaintiffs that case no. 27 of 1992 Dulichand versus Kulwant Singh and others, was not decided by the revenue court as such, a Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition no.40804 of 2017 Uddan Singh and others versus State of UP and others was filed in the High Court, which was pending. It was further averred that the above case no. 27 of 1992 has got no concern with the instant suit.It was further averred that on the property purchased through sale deed dated 3.3.1945 by the predecessors of the plaintiffs and the defendants third-party, at present, the plaintiffs and the defendants third-party are in continuous possession, which has got no concern with the defendants first party and defendant's second party. The sale deed dated 3.3.1945 has not been cancelled by any court till date. The disputed land was declared non-agricultural way back in the year 1988 under section 143 of the UPZA & LR Act by SDM, Sikandarabad, as such, the civil court has got jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit.
10. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that they sought legal opinion in this matter on 26.11.2021 and then they became aware that the defendants first party and their predecessors had fradulently and illegally executed sale deeds in favour of the defendant's second party, which were null and void. On getting this information, the plaintiffs applied for the certified copy of the above sale deeds dated 12.2.1988 and 17.2.1988 from the office of sub-registrar, Sikandarabad, which were obtained on 14.12.2021 and after perusing them, they became aware that a fraud was committed by the defendants first party by executing the above sale deeds in favour of defendant's second party, which were void and not binding on the plaintiffs.
11. It was further averred by the plaintiffs that on the land sold through sale deeds dated 12.2.1988 and 17.2.1988, the plaintiffs and the defendants third-party were still in possession, the defendants second party were not in possession of the purchased land.
12. It was specifically averred by the plaintiffs that prior to 14.12.2021 the plaintiffs and the defendants third-party were not having any knowledge regarding sale deeds dated 12.2.1988 and 17.2.1988, as such, the limitation for filing the suit for the cancellation of the above sale deeds, starts from their knowledge.
13. The plaintiffs claimed the following reliefs:-
(i)By declaratory decree of the court granted in favour of the plaintiffs, the sale deed dated 12.2.1988 executed by Smt. Manjeet Kaur, in favour of Smt. Rani Arora regarding land situated in village Namoli, Pargana Dankaur, Tehsil Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahar, at present Tehsil Sadar, District Gautam Buddha Nagar, which was registered in book no.1, Jild no. 1519, page no. 236/238, serial no.617 on 20.2.1988 in the office of subregistrar Sikandrabad, at present Sadar, District Gautam Buddha Nagar be declared void and ineffective and its information be also sent to the concerned subregistrar.
(ii)By declaratory decree of the court granted in favour of the plaintiffs, the sale deed dated 17.2.1988 executed by Ravneet Singh in favour of Smt.Rani Arora regarding land situated in village Namoli, Pargana Dankaur, Tehsil Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahar at present Tehsil Sadar, District Gautam Buddha Nagar, which was registered at book no.1, Jild No. 1519, pages 277/280, serial no. 664 on 23.2.1988 in the office of subregistrar Sikandrabad, at present Sadar, District Gautam Buddha Nagar, be declared void and ineffective and its information be also sent to the concerned subregistrar.
(iii) By decree of permanent injunction granted in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendant's second party, the defendants second party be restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the disputed land, from selling, alienating, mortgaging it, which is situated in village Namoli, Pargana Dankaur, Tehsil Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahar at present Tehsil Sadar, District Gautam Buddha Nagar, which belongs to the plaintiff and defendants third-party.
14. In the trial court, Smt.Rani Arora, the defendant second party moved an application 32-A under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the ground that regarding the disputed property, previously the plaintiff and his predecessors had filed case no. 27 of 1992 Dulichand and others versus Kulwant Singh and others under section 229-B of the UPZA & LR Act, in respect of which Writ no. 40804 of 2017 Dharampal and others versus State of UP and others is pending in the High Court, and this fact has also been accepted by the plaintiffs in para 15, 16 and 17 of the plaint, which proves that plaintiff was aware of the disputed sale deeds since the year 1992. The plaintiffs were not the recorded tenure holders.The limitation for filing suit for cancellation of the above sale deeds under Article 59 of the Limitation Act was 3 years from the date of execution of sale deeds or from the knowledge of its execution. Since, as per the averment of the plaintiffs they had filed case no. 27 of 1992 Dulichand and others versus Kulwant and others as such, after about 30 years on 31.1.2022 ,suit filed for cancellation of the above sale deeds,was barred by limitation. In view of this, the plaint be rejected.
15. The plaintiffs filed their objections against the above application in which they averred that the cause of action for filing the instant suit arose on 14.1.2022, as such, the suit was not barred by limitation. It was also averred that the question of limitation was a mixed question of law and fact which cannot be decided at this stage, which can only be decided after parties had led evidence. It was also averred that the merits of the case were not to be examined at this stage. With these submissions, it was prayed that the application be rejected.
16. The trial court by impugned order dated 5.5.2025 has allowed the defendants application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the ground that since, previously plaintiff and his predecessors had filed suit no. 27 of 1992 under section 229-B UPZA & LR Act in the court of SDM Sikandrabad, and were also a party to Writ no. 40804 of 2017 filed in the High Court, as such, plaintiff had knowledge of the disputed sale deeds since the year 1992, but the suit for the cancellation of the sale deeds was filed in the year 2022, which was barred by limitation. Accordingly, the plaint was rejected, aggrieved against which, the plaintiffs have filed the instant appeal under section 96 CPC.
17. Learned counsel for the plaintiff appellants Shri Krishna Mohan Garg, assisted by Shri Manu Saxena and Shri Radhamani Saxena submitted that at the stage of deciding application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only the plaint averments are to be examined along with the documents submitted by the plaintiff. At this stage, the averments made in the written statement and the documents submitted by the defendants are not to be examined. Learned counsel further submitted that at this stage the merits of the case of the plaintiff are also not to be examined. Learned counsel further submitted that from the plaint averments it is not evident that previous case no. 27 of 1992 was filed for the relief of cancellation of alleged sale deeds executed by the defendants in the year 1988. Learned counsel submitted that since the plaintiffs were not party to the alleged sale deeds as such, they were not having knowledge of its execution. The plaintiffs subsequently acquired knowledge of the above sale deeds in the year 2021 only and thereafter, the suit for cancellation of the sale deeds was filed, which was within the stipulated period of limitation from the date of knowledge of the sale deeds. Learned counsel further submitted that since the sale deeds were fraudulently executed as such, there was no limitation for getting the sale deeds cancelled. Learned counsel further submitted that question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, which can only be decided after parties have led their evidence, which cannot be decided summarily at the time of disposal of application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the above facts and law, the trial court committed error in allowing the defendants application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and in rejecting the plaint. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal be allowed and the matter be remanded back for deciding the suit on merits. Learned counsel has submitted the following case law in support of his submissions:-
(i) S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu(Dead) By Lrs. vs. Jagannath(Dead) By Lrs. & Others (1994) 1 SCC 1
(ii) Saleem Bhai & Others vs. State of Maharashtra & Others (2003) 1 SCC 557
(iii) Ram Prakash Gupta vs. Rajiv Kumar Gupta & Others (2007) 10 SCC 59.
(iv) Kamala & others vs. K.T. Eshwara SA & Others (2008) 12 SCC 661
(v) P.V. Guru Raj Reddy Represented By GPA Laxmi Narayan Reddy & Another vs. P. Neeradha Reddy & Others (2015) 8 SCC 331
(vi) Chhotanben & Another vs. Kiritbhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar & Others (2018) 6 SCC 422
(vii) Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali(Gajra) Dead Through Legal Representatives & Others (2020) 7 SCC 366
(viii) Salim D.Agboatwala & Others vs. Shamalji Oddhavji Thakkar & Others (2021) 17 SCC 100
(ix) Sri Biswanath Banik & Another vs. Sulanga Bose & Others (2022) 7 SCC 731
(x) Daliben Valjibhai & Ors. vs. Prajapati Kodarbhai Kachrabhai & Anr. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4105
(xi) Vishnu Vardhan @ Vishnu Pradhan vs. State of UP & Others 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1501
18. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendant- respondents Shri Shashinandan Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Anupam Kulshreshtha, Shri Ayub Khan and Shri K.K. Khetan submitted that the impugned order is perfectly legal because prima-facie the suit was barred by limitation. Learned counsel further submitted that in the instant appeal, the appellants have filed rejoinder affidavit, which discloses that the previous case no. 27 of 1992 was filed for the cancellation of the disputed sale deeds, as such, it is proved that the plaintiffs had knowledge of the alleged sale deeds way back in the year 1992, but they chose to file the suit belatedly in the year 2022, which was hopelessly barred by limitation. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal is meritless and be rejected. The learned counsel has submitted the following case law in support of his submissions:-
(i) Raghwendra Sharan Singh vs. Ram Prasanna Singh(Dead) By Legal Representatives (2020) 16 SCC 601
(ii) Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead Through Legal Representatives & Others (2020) 7 SCC 366
(iii) Uma Devi & Others vs. Anand Kumar & Others (2025) 5 SCC 198
19. I have heard the learned counsel of the parties, perused the record and the caselaw submitted by them.
20. The Apex Court in the case of Sri Biswanath Banik and another versus Sulanga Bose and others (2022)7 SCC 731, while discussing the issue of suit being barred by limitation under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, held as under:-
7. Now, so far as the issue whether the suit can be said to be barred by limitation or not, at this stage, what is required to be considered is the averments in the plaint. Only in a case where on the face of it, it is seen that the suit is barred by limitation, then and then only a plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d)CPC on the ground of limitation. At this stage what is required to be considered is the averments in the plaint. For the aforesaid purpose, the Court has to consider and read the averments in the plaint as a whole. As observed and held by this Court in Ram Prakash Gupta (2007) 10 SCC 59 , rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d)CPC by reading only few lines and passages and ignoring the other relevant parts of the plaint is impermissible. In the said decision, in para 21, it is observed and held as under: (SCC p. 68)
21. As observed earlier, before passing an order in an application filed for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d), it is but proper to verify the entire plaint averments. The abovementioned materials clearly show that the decree passed in Suit No. 183 of 1974 came to the knowledge of the plaintiff in the year 1986, when Suit No. 424 of 1989 titled Assema Architect v. Ram Prakash was filed in which a copy of the earlier decree was placed on record and thereafter he took steps at the earliest and filed the suit for declaration and in the alternative for possession. It is not in dispute that as per Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, a suit ought to have been filed within a period of three years from the date of the knowledge. The knowledge mentioned in the plaint cannot be termed as inadequate and incomplete as observed [Ram Prakash Gupta v. Rajiv Kumar Gupta, 2006 SCC OnLine Del 488] by the High Court. While deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11, few lines or passages should not be read in isolation and the pleadings have to be read as a whole to ascertain its true import. We are of the view that both the trial court as well as the High Court failed to advert to the relevant averments as stated in the plaint.'' 7.1. From the aforesaid decision and even otherwise as held by this Court in a catena of decisions, while considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11CPC, the Court has to go through the entire plaint averments and cannot reject the plaint by reading only few lines/passages and ignoring the other relevant parts of the plaint.
21. The Apex Court in the case of Daliben Valjibhai(supra), while discussing whether the period of limitation is to be calculated from the date of knowledge of the sale deed, regarding which cancellation of suit was filed, held as under:-
11. This Court had to deal with a similar situation in P.V. Guru Raj Reddy v. P. Neeradha Reddy (2015) 8 SCC 331. A suit instituted by the plaintiff in the year 2002 for cancellation of sale deed of year 1979 on the ground that the knowledge of fraud was acquired only in 1999, was objected to by the defendant in an application under Order 7 Rule 11 on the ground that it is barred by limitation. This Court held:
5. Rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC is a drastic power conferred in the court to terminate a civil action at the threshold. The conditions precedent to the exercise of power under Order 7 Rule 11, therefore, are stringent and have been consistently held to be so by the Court. It is the averments in the plaint that have to be read as a whole to find out whether it discloses a cause of action or whether the suit is barred under any law. At the stage of exercise of power under Order 7 Rule 11, the stand of the defendants in the written statement or in the application for rejection of the plaint is wholly immaterial. It is only if the averments in the plaint ex facie do not disclose a cause of action or on a reading thereof the suit appears to be barred under any law the plaint can be rejected. In all other situations, the claims will have to be adjudicated in the course of the trial.
6. In the present case, reading the plaint as a whole and proceeding on the basis that the averments made therein are correct, which is what the Court is required to do, it cannot be said that the said pleadings ex facie disclose that the suit is barred by limitation or is barred under any other provision of law. The claim of the plaintiffs with regard to the knowledge of the essential facts giving rise to the cause of action as pleaded will have to be accepted as correct. At the stage of consideration of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 the stand of the defendants in the written statement would be altogether irrelevant.
12. Further, in Chhotanben v. Kirtibhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar(2018) 6SCC 422 where again a suit for cancellation of sale deed was opposed through an application under Order 7 Rule 11, on ground of limitation, this Court specifically held that limitation in all such cases will arise from date of knowledge. The relevant portion is as follows:
15. What is relevant for answering the matter in issue in the context of the application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC, is to examine the averments in the plaint. The plaint is required to be read as a whole. The defence available to the defendants or the plea taken by them in the written statement or any application filed by them, cannot be the basis to decide the application under Order 7 Rule 11(d). Only the averments in the plaint are germane. It is common ground that the registered sale deed is dated 18-10-1996. The limitation to challenge the registered sale deed ordinarily would start running from the date on which the sale deed was registered. However, the specific case of the appellant-plaintiffs is that until 2013 they had no knowledge whatsoever regarding execution of such sale deed by their brothers, original Defendants 1 and 2, in favour of Jaikrishnabhai Prabhudas Thakkar or Defendants 3 to 6. They acquired that knowledge on 26-12-2012 and immediately took steps to obtain a certified copy of the registered sale deed and on receipt thereof they realised the fraud played on them by their brothers concerning the ancestral property and two days prior to the filing of the suit, had approached their brothers (original Defendants 1 and 2) calling upon them to stop interfering with their possession and to partition the property and provide exclusive possession of half () portion of the land so designated towards their share. However, when they realised that the original Defendants 1 and 2 would not pay any heed to their request, they had no other option but to approach the court of law and filed the subject suit within two days therefrom. According to the appellants, the suit has been filed within time after acquiring the knowledge about the execution of the registered sale deed. In this context, the trial court opined that it was a triable issue and declined to accept the application filed by Respondent 1-Defendant 5 for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d). That view commends to us.
19. In the present case, we find that the appellant-plaintiffs have asserted that the suit was filed immediately after getting knowledge about the fraudulent sale deed executed by original Defendants 1 and 2 by keeping them in the dark about such execution and within two days from the refusal by the original Defendants 1 and 2 to refrain from obstructing the peaceful enjoyment of use and possession of the ancestral property of the appellants. We affirm the view taken by the trial court that the issue regarding the suit being barred by limitation in the facts of the present case, is a triable issue and for which reason the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold in exercise of the power under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC.
22. The Apex Court in the case of Salim D.Agboatwala and others(supra) while discussing rejection of plaint on the ground of bar of limitation under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, held as under:-
8. Insofar as the rejection of the plaint on the ground of limitation is concerned, it is needless to emphasise that limitation is a mixed question of fact and law. It is the case of the appellant-plaintiffs that only after making inspection of the records in connection with the suit land available in the office of Defendant 3 (Court Receiver) that they came across the correspondence and documents relating to the transactions and that the proceedings before ALT were collusive, fraudulent and null and void. The appellant-plaintiffs have even questioned the authority of the Court Receiver to represent them in the tenancy proceedings.
9. The above averments may or may not be true. But if the plaintiffs succeed in establishing the above averments, the issue of limitation cannot be put against the plaintiffs. Generally a party, who never had any notice of a particular proceeding before a quasi-judicial authority, is entitled to approach the court upon gaining knowledge of the proceedings. Limitation cannot be put against such a party.
11. As observed by this Court in P.V. Guru Raj Reddy v. P. Neeradha Reddy [(2015) 8 SCC 331 : (2015) 4 SCC (Civ) 100] , the rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 is a drastic power conferred on the court to terminate a civil action at the threshold. Therefore, the conditions precedent to the exercise of the power are stringent and it is especially so when rejection of plaint is sought on the ground of limitation. When a plaintiff claims that he gained knowledge of the essential facts giving rise to the cause of action only at a particular point of time, the same has to be accepted at the stage of considering the application under Order 7 Rule 11.
12. Again as pointed out by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Chhotanben v. Kiritbhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar [(2018) 6 SCC 422 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 524] , the plea regarding the date on which the plaintiffs gained knowledge of the essential facts, is crucial for deciding the question whether the suit is barred by limitation or not. It becomes a triable issue and hence the suit cannot be thrown out at the threshold.
23. From the above law laid down by the Apex Court it is evident that the plaint as a whole is to be considered for ascertaining whether it discloses any cause of action or not. It is also apparent that the written statement and the documents submitted by the defendant are not to be examined at the stage of deciding Order 7 Rule 11 CPC application. It is also apparent that the veracity of the plaint averments are not to be examined at this stage. Also, the limitation for filing suit for cancellation of the sale deed is three years from the date of its knowledge. It is also apparent that limitation is mixed question of law and fact, which cannot be summarily decided, unless the plaint averments itself disclose beyond doubt that the relief claimed was barred by limitation. Also, if the plaintiff raises a triable issue, then the suit cannot be thrown out at the threshold.
24. I have considered the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (supra) and Vishnu Vardhan (supra) which pertain to fraud committed upon the court in judicial proceedings, which is not the case in the instant suit. Similarly, the case of Kamala (supra) pertains to whether the issue of res-judicata can be decided at the stage of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The above case law are not applicable on the facts of this case.
25. I have also considered the case law submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents. There is no quarrel with the principle of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Raghwendra Sharan Singh(supra),Dahiben(supra) and Uma Devi(supra) but they are not applicable on the facts of this case, because prima-facie the plaint averments do not disclose that the suit was barred by limitation.
26. If we examine the plaint averments in this case on the touchstone of above legal principles, then it is apparent that plaintiffs are claiming ownership in the disputed property situated in village Namoli, Pargana Dankaur,Tehsil Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahar at present Tehsil Sadar, District Gautam Buddha Nagar on the basis of two registered sale deeds dated 3.3.1945 executed in favour of their predecessors and the predecessors of defendants third party. It is the case of the plaintiffs that on the basis of the above sale deeds the names of their predecessors were mutated in the revenue records in the Fasli year 1352 1355 and thereafter, the predecessors of the plaintiff remained in possession of the above properties along with the predecessors of the defendants third party.
27. It is the case of the plaintiffs that after the partition of India and Pakistan, the predecessors of defendants first party came to India in the year 1948 and thereafter, came to the predecessors of plaintiffs and the defendants third party and expressed their intention to work on their agricultural fields in lieu of salary, to which the predecessors of the plaintiffs agreed. Thereafter, the predecessors of the defendants first party honestly and regularly remitted the profits generated from farming, after deducting their salary and expenses to the predecessors of the plaintiffs. It is also apparent that the predecessors of the plaintiffs and the defendants third party never doubted the integrity of the predecessors of the defendants first party. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that since the predecessors of plaintiffs and defendants third party were simple person who were not well educated, as such, taking advantage of this, during consolidation proceedings, managed to get themselves, their family members and relatives, fraudulently mutated as Sirdar in the revenue records in the Fasli year 1357,1358 and 1359, which they had no right whatsoever.
28. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that the above mutation in the revenue records was done with the connivance of the revenue officials, regarding which they were not aware. The plaintiffs further averred that their relative Teekam Singh informed that the consolidation proceedings in village Namoli ended in the year 1981 and whether this information was given to them by the cultivators. On getting this information, the plaintiffs got suspicious and then enquired from the Lekhpal of village Namoli, who informed them that plaintiffs and their predecessors are not recorded as owners in the revenue records, instead the Sardars have got mutated themselves as owners. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that since the predecessors of the defendant first party regularly remitted the profits generated from the agricultural land to them, as such, they never became aware that the predecessors of the defendant first party had fraudulently and surreptitiously got themselves mutated in the revenue records.
29. The trial court concluded that since the plaintiffs mentioned in the plaint that previously they filed case no. 27 of 1992 Dulichand and others versus Kulwant Singh and others under section 229-B of the UPZA & LR Act, the plaintiffs had knowledge in the year 1992 itself in respect of the disputed sale deeds regarding which, the relief of declaration of being void and not binding was sought.
30. The above reasoning of the trial court is perverse because the plaintiffs have only mentioned that they filed the above suit for declaration of their rights in the disputed land. Nowhere, it is mentioned that they had earlier claimed the relief of cancellation of the disputed sale deeds. To the contrary, it is mentioned in the plaint, that in the written statement filed by the defendants in that suit, they had acknowledged the ownership and possession of plaintiffs and their predecessors on the disputed land.
31. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that for the first time they became aware on 14.12.2021, that the alleged disputed sale deeds have been fraudulently executed by the predecessors of defendant first party in favour of the defendant second party and then the suit was filed in the year 2022. It is apparent that the limitation for filing suit for cancellation of the disputed sale deeds, when the plaintiff was not it's executant, is to be calculated from the date of knowledge of the sale deeds and the suit can be filed within three years from the date of knowledge. It is well settled that at this stage, the veracity of the averments of the plaint are not to be examined, unless the averments itself conclusively prove that the suit was barred by limitation.
32. The trial court has also recorded a finding that the plaintiffs have not mentioned in the plaint that disputed sale deeds have no relation with the property mentioned in case no. 27 of 1992 and Writ no.40804 of 2017 pending in the High Court. The above finding of the trial court is perverse because the plaintiffs have especially mentioned in para-17 of the plaint that case no. 27 of 1992 has no concern with the present suit.
33. It is apparent from the plaint averments that the suit was prima facie not barred by limitation. The plaintiff has raised certain issues which are triable and as such, the plaint could not have been summarily rejected by allowing application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The issues which have been raised by the plaintiffs in the plaint are mixed question of fact and law which can only be decided after taking evidence of the parties. In view of the above facts, this Court is of the view that the trial court has committed error in dismissing the plaintiff 's suit as being barred by limitation. Accordingly, this appeal has merits and is liable to be allowed.
34. The appeal is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment and decree of the trial court dated 5.5.2025 in O.S. no. 238 of 2022 is set-aside and the original suit is restored to its original number. The defendants application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC stands dismissed.
35. However in the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their respective costs. Office is directed to prepare the decree accordingly.
36. The trial court is directed to decide the suit expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year from the date a certified copy of this order is communicated to it, without giving unnecessary adjournment to any party, on merits, in accordance with law.
37. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
38. Office is directed to send back the original trial court record forthwith, if received.
Order Date:- 07.10.2025 Jitendra/Himanshu/Mayank (Sandeep Jain,J.)