# Pratap Singh (Since Deceased) & Ors v. Ravneet Singh & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 1128
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-07
- **Case number:** First Appeal No. 442 of 2025
- **Bench:** Sandeep Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pratap-singh-since-deceased-ors-v-ravneet-singh-ors-54724
- **Pages:** 12

## Text

_Characters 0–39,917 of 47,763. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39917 for what follows._

1128 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
defendants had turned malafide and then he
filed the suit on 05.08.2013.

22. It is apparent that since the plaintiff
and the defendant no.1 were continuously in
touch with one another and were having talks
during which the plaintiff was assured that
ultimately the sale deed would be executed in
his favour, the plaintiff failed to initiate
appropriate legal action in the matter. It is also
apparent that in the facts and circumstances of
the case the plaintiff has pleaded that the
defendants
extended
the
time
for
the
performance of agreement to sell as such, prima
facie the trial court could not have dismissed
the suit at the threshold while disposing
application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The
issues raised by the plaintiff were triable, which
were mixed question of law and fact, which
could only have been decided after the parties
had led evidence. It is well settled that at the
threshold the court is not required to examine
the issue on merits and the court is bound to
believe the version of the plaintiff as setup in
the plaint.

23. In the instant case it is to be
decided on the basis of evidence whether the
time period for execution of sale deed was
extended by the defendant no.1 or not, it is also
to be decided whether a fraud was practiced
upon the plaintiff by convincing him to believe
that Ramroop has died and his legal heirs are
not ready to execute the sale deed in favour of
the plaintiff. It is well settled that the plaintiff
can show on the basis of oral evidence and
conduct of the defendants that subsequently the
duration for executing the sale deed was
extended by them and due to this reason, he
didnt file the suit for the specific performance
of the agreement to sell till 12.06.2012.

24. In view of the above facts and
circumstances, the trial court has certainly erred
in dismissing the plaintiffs suit at the
threshold, without giving him the opportunity to
lead evidence, under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The
trial court has passed a perverse order which
needs to be set aside by this Court in exercise of
its appellate jurisdiction. Consequently this
appeal has got merits and is liable to be
allowed.

25. This appeal is hearby allowed.
The impugned judgment and decree dated
17.02.2017 is set aside. The O.S. No.1112 of
2013 stands restored on its original number.
The defendants application under Order 7 Rule
11 CPC stands dismissed.

26. Interim order, if any, stands
vacated.

27. The trial court is directed to decide
the suit preferably within a period of one
year, from the date a certified copy of this order
is received by it, without affording unnecessary
adjournments to either party, in accordance with
law, on merits.

28. Costs easy. Office is directed to
prepare the decree accordingly.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 1128
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal No. 442 of 2025

Pratap Singh (Since Deceased) & Ors.
...Appellants
Versus
Ravneet Singh & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Krishna
Mohan
Garg,
Manu
Saxena,
Radhamani Saxena

Counsel for the Respondents:
Anupam Kulshreshtha, Ayub Khan, Saurabh
Paul

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs in 2022
for cancellation of sale deeds of 1988 was
10 All. Pratap Singh (Since Deceased) & Ors. Vs. Ravneet Singh & Ors.
1129
barred by limitation under Article 59 of the
Limitation Act.
2. Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the
plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC by holding
that plaintiffs had knowledge of the sale deeds
since 1992.
3. Whether the plea of fraud and discovery of
sale deeds in 2021 created a fresh cause of
action within limitation.
4. Whether limitation is a mixed question of law
and fact requiring trial and evidence.

HEADNOTES
Civil Law - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 -
Section
96,
Order
7,
Rule
11(d)
-
Limitation Act, 1963 - Section - 17, 59, -
UP Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms
Act (UPZA & LR Act) - Section 143, 229-B:
- First Appeal U/section 96 of the CPC -
challenging the impugned judgment and decree
- suit - application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC
- Limitation - Fraud - Date of Knowledge - At
the stage of deciding an application under Order
7 Rule 11 CPC, only the plaint averments are to
be considered and not the defendant's pleadings
or documents - limitation for cancellation of sale
deeds under Article 59 of the Limitation Act runs
from the date of knowledge when the plaintiff is
not a party to the deed, and fraud suspends
limitation until discovery under Section 17 -
Court finds that, plaintiffs pleaded continuous
possession and discovery of fraudulent sale
deeds only in December 2021, the suit filed in
2022 was within limitation, and since limitation
and fraud are mixed questions of law and fact
raising triable issues, the plaint could not be
rejected summarily - and if fraud is pleaded
limitation may run from date of discovery under
Section 17, plaint averments must be taken at
face value, and limitation involving fraud and
assurances is a mixed question of law and fact -
Held, trial court erred in rejecting plaint
summarily, appeal allowed, impugned judgment
set aside, defendants' application under Order 7
Rule 11 CPC dismissed, suit restored for trial on
merits with direction to decide within one year.
(Para - 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36)
 Appeal allowed. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
Sri Biswanath Banik v. Sulanga Bose (2022) 7
SCC 731, - S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v.
Jagannath Vishnu Vardhan - 2003 vol. 1 SCC
557, - Ram Prakash Gupta vs. Rajiv Kumar
Gupta & Others 6 (2007) 10 SCC 59, - Kamala &
others vs. K.T. Eshwara SA & Others (2008) 12
SCC 661, - P. V. Guru Raj Reddy Represented
by GPA Laxmi Narayan Reddy & Another Vs. P.
Neeradha Reddy & Others (2015) 8 SCC 331, -
Chhotanben
&
Another
vs.
Kiritbhai
Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar & Others (2018) 6 SCC
422, - Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali
(Gajra) Dead Through Legal Representatives &
Others (2020) 7 SCC 366, Salim D. Agboat wala
& Others vs. Shamalji Oddhavji Thakkar &
Others (2021) 17 SCC 100, Saleem Bhai &
Others vs. State of Maharashtra & Others
(2003) 1 SCC 557, - Sri Biswanath Banik &
Another vs. Sulanga Bose & Others (2022) 7
SCC 731, - Vishnu Vardhan @ Vishnu Pradhan
vs. State of UP & Others 2025 SCC OnLine SC
1501, - Raghwendra Sharan Singh vs. Ram
Prasanna
Singh
(Dead)
By
Legal
Representatives (2020) 16 SCC 601, - Uma Devi
& Others vs. Anand Kumar & Others (2025) 5
SCC 198.

LIST OF ACTS
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Limitation Act,
1963 - UP Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms
Act (UPZA & LR Act)

LIST OF KEYWORDS
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Section
96 (Appeal), Order 7 Rule 11(d) - Limitation Act,
1963 - Article 59 (cancellation of instruments),
Section 17 (fraud) - UP Zamindari Abolition &
Land Reforms Act (UPZA & LR Act) - Section
229-B (declaration of rights), Section 143
(declaration
of
non-agricultural
land)
-
Limitation - Fraudulent mutation - Sale deed
cancellation - Order 7 Rule 11 CPC - Declaratory
decree - Permanent injunction - Date of
knowledge - Triable issue - Possession - Civil
court jurisdiction.

CASE ARISING FROM
Original Suit No. 238 of 2022 (Pratap Singh &
others v. Ravneet Singh & others) before
Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gautam
Buddha Nagar - Appeal under Section 96 CPC
against judgment dated 5.5.2025 rejecting
plaint.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
1130 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for Appellant(s): Shri Krishna Mohan
Garg (learned counsel), assisted by Shri Manu
Saxena and Shri Radhamani Saxena.
Counsel
for
Respondent(s):
Shri
Anupam
Kulshrestha, Ayub Khan, Saurabh Paul.

(Delivered by 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 thirdparty 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 thirdparty 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 thirdparty, and due to this the predecessors of the
plaintiff
and
defendant
third-party
never
doubted their integrity.
10 All. Pratap Singh (Since Deceased) & Ors. Vs. Ravneet Singh & Ors.
1131

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.
1132 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

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
10 All. Pratap Singh (Since Deceased) & Ors. Vs. Ravneet Singh & Ors.
1133
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
1134 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(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
10 All. Pratap Singh (Since Deceased) & Ors. Vs. Ravneet Singh & Ors.
1135
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
1136 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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
1Defendant 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 threeJudge 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
10 All. Pratap Singh (Since Deceased) & Ors. Vs. Ravneet Singh & Ors.
1137
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.