The plaintiff admits in paragraph 3 3 and 3 that he had the defective title on 24.11.1974.
Cause of action of the said suit was said to have arisen in 1994 when the defendants allegedly trespassed over the suit property.
At this stage, the companyrt would number be entitled to companysider the case of the defence.
Respondent preferred a civil revision petition thereagainst.
The Respondent Plaintiff filed the suit describing the suit property in accordance to his sale deed dated 14.9.1979 before the District Munsif of Tambaram in OS No.501 of 1994 on 28.3.1994.
By reason of the impugned order, a Division Bench of the High Court reversed the said judgment of the Trial Court opining that the period of limitation, as per Article 58 of the Limitation Act, expired in 1997 itself, stating A perusal of the typed set of papers would show that the present suit has been filed by the respondent plaintiff for the relief of declaration of title of the suit property and companysequently injunction and in the alternative for recovery of possession.
The following admitted facts would clearly establish the same.
Respondent on or about 8.8.2001 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 d of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for rejection of the plaint on the premise that the suit was barred by limitation, inter alia, stating I beg to submit that the Respondent Plaintiff in the plaint paragraph 4 with respect to the question of limitation has averred that he had the knowledge of the mistake with regard to the boundaries in the sale deed only on 2.11.1998 for the purpose of satisfying the companyrt to admit the plaint.
See Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Association 2005 7 SCC 510.
The respondent filed the present suit mainly for declaring his title to the suit property.
Arising out of SLP C No.18129 of 2006 B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
The said suit was filed for the relief of permanent injunction based on the sale deed and possession of the sale property alleging that he was in possession of the sale property.
He further companytended that mistake was repeated again on 14.9.1979.
Appellant herein filed a suit against the respondents claiming, inter alia, for the following reliefs For declaration of plaintiffs title to the suit property For companysequential injunction, restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants, etc.
The said suit was filed in the year 2001.
