Pratap Singh and others v. Ravneet Singh and others passed by the court of Additional Civil Judge

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 1 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. 2

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 3 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 4 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. 5

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:-

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 1 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. 2

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 3 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 4 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. 5

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:-