Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and declaration of registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.763 of 1991, 371 of 1993 and 2067 of 2010 as not binding upon them and for rectification of revenue records from the year 1996-1997 till date. After receiving the summons, plaint and documents, the petitioner herein filed a petition under Order-VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC to reject the plaint on the grounds that there was no cause of action for the suit and that the suit was barred by limitation. The plaint was cleverly drafted seeking a Dr.GRR,J relief that the registered sale deed documents were not binding on the plaintiffs instead of seeking the relief for cancellation of those documents knowing well that if the said prayer was made, it would squarely be barred by limitation. As per Articles 58 and 59 of Limitation Act, the time prescribed for seeking for declaration and cancellation of any document was three years from the date of execution. The initial document executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 was a registered sale deed document No.763 of 1991. It was not only an ancient document, but also a document conferring rights in favour of vendees nearly three decades back. If at all the same was sought to be cancelled, the suit ought to be instituted in the year 1994 itself but it was filed in the year 2021 i.e. nearly 27 years after expiry of the period of limitation. For filing the suit seeking the said relief by clever drafting, the plaintiffs contended that they came to know about the documents only in the year 2020, when the defendant No.4 filed the suit O.S No.211 of 2020, which was a false and baseless allegation made only to cover up the limitation aspect and to bring the suit within the limitation.