Jagannathpura, Post Sevapura, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur v. Smt. Gheesi Devi W/o Late Kaluram (Name Deleted), R/o

Judgment

1. Smt. Gheesi Devi W/o Late Kaluram (Name Deleted), R/o Sundariyawas, Via Kalwar, District Jaipur

Sitaram S/o Late Shri Kaluram, R/o Sundariyawas, Via Kalwar, District Jaipur

3. Ramnarayan S/o Late Shri Kaluram, R/o Sundariyawas, Via Kalwar, District Jaipur

4. Ramlal S/o Late Shri Kaluram, R/o Sundariyawas, Via Kalwar, District Jaipur

5. Smt. Lali Devi W/o Late Arjunlal D/o Late Kaluram, R/o Village Hanumanpura, Post Sevapura, Via Morija, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur

6. Smt. Gopali Devi W/o Sajjan D/o Late Kaluram, R/o Village Hathnoda, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur

7. Smt. Koyali Devi W/o Lalaram S/o Late Shri Kaluram, R/o Village Dhabas, Ekta Nagar, Jagdamba Nagar, Heerapura, Jaipur

9. Smt. Teeja Devi W/o Sitaram, R/o Village Jagannathpura State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar / Sub Registrar Amer. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kamal Kant Sharma, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA 18/07/2025 Judgment With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is being finally heard and decided at this stage. [2025:RJ-JP:26914] (2 of 4) [CSA-335/2023] This civil second appeal has been filed by the appellant- plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) against the judgment and decree dated 15.07.2023 passed by the Additional District Judge No.10, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, Headquarter Chomu in Civil Regular Appeal No.01/2022, whereby the appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and affirmed the order and decree dated

07.01.2020 passed by the Civil Judge (Lower Division) & Metropolitan Magistrate No. 25, Chomu Headquarter, Jaipur in Civil Suit No.52/2019, whereby the trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance, declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) in which defendant No.8 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC before the trial court that suit filed by the plaintiff is time barred. So, suit be dismissed. Trial court vide order and decree dated 07.01.2020 allowed the application filed by the defendant No.8 and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff being barred by limitation. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that plaintiff preferred a first appeal against the said order and decree but appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 15.07.2023 dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that the trial court as well as appellate court had committed error in dismissing the suit as well as appeal. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that father of the defendant Nos.2 to 7 and husband of defendant No.1 had [2025:RJ-JP:26914] (3 of 4) [CSA-335/2023] executed an agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff on

28.01.2001 in sale consideration of Rs.1,35,000/- for disputed land and received Rs.30,000/- cash and at that time, possession was handed over. Advocate of the defendant No.8 had gave a notice to the plaintiff on 22.10.2013 and sought the possession of the disputed land on the ground that disputed land was sold to the defendant No.8. As per contention of the defendants, the plaintiff had knowledge regarding sale of the disputed land on account of notice dated 22.10.2013. So, present suit filed by the plaintiff was time barred because he came to know that disputed land was sold in the year 2013, whereas the suit was filed in the year 2019. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that agreement for specific performance does not bear any particular date regarding its performance. Plaintiff in his suit clearly mentioned that cause of action finally accrued on 06.09.2019. So, suit filed by the plaintiff was within limitation. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that point of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact. So, it could be decided after the evidence of the parties. So, order and decree dated 07.01.2020 passed by the trial court as well as judgment and decree dated 15.07.2023 passed by the appellate court be set aside and matter be remanded to the trial court for adjudicating the suit after taking the evidence of the parties. Learned counsel for the defendants has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff and submits that the trial court as well as appellate court rightly came to the conclusion that the suit filed by the plaintiff was time barred [2025:RJ-JP:26914] (4 of 4) [CSA-335/2023] because he had knowledge the sale of the disputed land on

22.10.2013 when he received the notice. So, present appeal filed by the plaintiff being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff as well as learned counsel for the defendants. It is an admitted position that while deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC averments of the plaint are to be seen. In plaint, the plaintiff clearly mentioned that cause of action accrued on 06.09.2019, when defendants finally denied to execute the agreement to sell. So, according to him, suit filed by him is within limitation. In my considered opinion, point of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and it is required to be decided after taking the evidence of the parties. So, present appeal filed by the plaintiff deserves to be allowed. The Civil Second Appeal filed by the plaintiff is allowed. The order and decree dated 07.01.2020 passed by the trial court as well as judgment and decree dated 15.07.2023 passed by the appellate court are set aside. Parties are directed to appear before the trial court on

18.08.2025. The trial court is directed to decide the suit on merit after taking the evidence of the parties, in accordance with law. Record of the case be sent forthwith to the trial court. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. Jatin /76 (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J