Smt Anita Deceased Through Her Lrs vs Mr. Bhupinder Singh & Ors.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~63
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of decision:20 August, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010390022026
+ RFA 872/2026, CM APPL. 56267/2026, CM APPL. 56268/2026,
CM APPL. 56269/2026, CM APPL. 56270/2026
SMT ANITA DECEASED THROUGH HER LRS
1. Ms. Grishika
D/o Smt. Anita
W/o Shri Rajesh Phore
R/o D1/132, Gali No. 15,
D-Block, Rama Vihar, Delhi-110081
Also at:
Flat No. A-002, R.K. Tower, Sector-28,
Dwarka, New Delhi-110077. .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Ratnesh Bansal and Mr. Yuvraj
Singh, Advocates
versus
1. MR. BHUPINDER SINGH
R/o 95, Denecrofit Road,
Hillingdom Middles, UB 10 SHZ. England ..Respondent No.1
2. MS. DALJIT KAUR
W/o Mr.Sunder Singh Sohal
R/o Noor, Horto Road, Stanley,
Moor Stainess. Middlesex, England ..Respondent No.2
3. MR. MANMOHAN SINGH SOORA
R/o 473, Welmar Drive,
Woodbridge, Ontario, Canada ..Respondent No. 3
4. MR. RAJINDER SINGH SOORA
RFA 872/2026 Page 1 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:02.09.2026
16:30:47
R/o 146, Lady Margaret Road South Hall,
Middles, UBI 2RJ, England ..Respondent No.4
5. MR. PARMINDER SINGH SOORA
R/o 34, Butter Field Crescent,
Maple, Ontario, L6A, Ij5,
Canada Middles, UBI 2RJ, England ..Respondent No.5
All the Respondent No. 1 to 5 Legal Heris’/
Children of Late Mr. Phuman Singh
6. MS. SWARAN KAUR
W/o Late Mr. Rattan Singh
R/o 117, Abbotts Road, South Hall,
Middx. United Kingdom. ..Respondent No.6
7. MR. SEWA SINGH SOORA
R/o 1721, Philbrook Crescent
London, Ontario, Canada ..Respondent No. 7
8. MR. CHARANJEET SINGH SOORA @ CHANNA
R/o 117, Abbotts Road, South Hall,
Middx, United Kindgom ..Respondent No.8
9. MS. DAVINDER KAUR
W/o Mr. Sewa Singh Chana
R/o 124, Lady Margaret Road,
South Hall, Middles, UBI 2RJ
England Middles, UBI 2RJ, England ..Respondent No.9
10. MS. SHINDER KAUR
W/o Mr. Daljeet Singh Sehni
R/o 5, Goodman Park, Slough Bucks.
United Kingdom. ..Respondent No.10
11. MS. PARAMJIT KAUR
W/o Mr. Jasbir Singh
R/o 124, Lady Margaret Road,
RFA 872/2026 Page 2 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:02.09.2026
16:30:47
South Hall, Middles, UBI 2RJ, England ..Respondent No.11
All 6 to 11 Legal Heirs Children
of Late Mr. Rattan Singh
All the Respondent No. 1 to 11 may serve
Through their Attorney
Sh. Jagtar Singh Vilku
R/o House No. 84, Sector-1,
Vaishali Gazibad, U.P.
Also at:
R/o 3002/2, Bhagat Singh Street,
Paharganj New Delhi-110055
12. MS. HARBHAJAN KAUR
W/o Late Mr. Harkrishan Singh ..Respondent No. 12
13. MR. RAJENDER SINGH RAYAT
S/o Late Mr. Harkrishan Singh ..Respondent No.13
14. MR. PRAVEEN SINGH RAYAT
S/o Late Mr. Harkrishan Singh ..Respondent No.14
All three Respondents Nos. 12 to 14
R/o 3325, Ranjit Nagar, Near Pusa Gate,
New Delhi-110008. .....Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. Regular First Appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) has been
filed on behalf of the Appellants/Legal Representatives of the original
Plaintiff, Smt. Anita, against the Order and Decree dated 14.07.2026,
RFA 872/2026 Page 3 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:02.09.2026
16:30:47
whereby the learned District Judge, allowed the Application under Order VII
Rule 11 read with Section 151 PC filed by Defendant Nos.1 to 11 and
rejected the Plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC , as being barred by
limitation.
2. The Plaintiff had instituted Civil Suit No.33/2019 seeking
Declaration of co-ownership in respect of property bearing No.3325/17,
Village Shadipur, Ranjit Nagar, Patel Nagar, New Delhi, admeasuring about
220 sq. yards (hereinafter referred to as the “suit property”); Cancellation
of the registered Sale Deed dated 28.05.1956 and the subsequent Sale
Deeds/mutations; Declaration that the Judgment and Decree dated
31.08.2017 passed in Civil Suit No.611781/2016 and the consequential
execution proceedings were null and void; Mandatory Injunction for
restoration of possession and Permanent Injunction restraining the
Defendants from creating third-party interest in the suit property.
3. The facts, in brief, as narrated in the Plaint, are that the suit property
was jointly owned by five co-owners, namely, Sh. Tek Chand, Sh. Dhuli
Chand, Sh. Chhote Lal, Sh. Surat Singh and Sh. Lal Chand . Sh. Surat Singh
and Sh. Lal Chand, both sons of Sh. Neki @ Neki Ram, were admittedly
minors at the time of execution of the registered Sale Deed dated
28.05.1956.
4. It was asserted that Sh. Tek Chand, Sh. Dhuli Chand and Sh. Chhote
Lal, without the consent or knowledge of the two minor co-owners, namely,
Sh. Surat Singh and Sh. Lal Chand , purportedly alienated the suit property
in favour of Sh. Phuman Singh, Sh. Rattan Singh and Sh. Ranjit Singh, vide
registered Sale Deed dated 28.05.1956 . According to the Plaintiffs, the adult
co-owners had no authority to alienate the undivided shares of the minors
RFA 872/2026 Page 4 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:02.09.2026
16:30:47
and no permission of the competent Court had been obtained for the same.
The Sale Deed, to the extent of the shares of Sh. Surat Singh and Sh. Lal
Chand, was therefore, claimed to be illegal, void and incapable of
conferring any title.
5. The Plaintiffs further asserted that the existence of the aforesaid Sale
Deed, had never been disclosed to Sh. Surat Singh and Sh. Lal Chand and
despite its execution, they continued to remain in possession and use of
substantial portions of the undivided suit property even after attaining
majority, along with their respective family members.
6. Smt. Anita claimed that she was the wife of Sh. Rajesh, son of Late
Sh. Lal Chand,(one of the two minors) and had herself continued to reside in
and occupy the suit property. She further relied upon a registered General
Power of Attorney dated 05.03.201 8, stated to have been executed in her
favour by the surviving Legal Heirs of Late Sh. Surat Singh and Late Sh. Lal
Chand, authorising her to protect and pursue their rights in respect of the suit
property.
7. It was further pleaded that the suit property had never been partitioned
and that neither the Plaintiff nor the legal heirs of Late Sh. Surat Singh and
Late Sh. Lal Chand, had alienated their respective shares. The Plaintiff also
asserted that Respondent Nos.1 to 11/their predecessors, had instituted a
Civil Suit No.611781/2016 (Old No.1794/2000) against the Legal Heirs of
Sh. Harkrishan Singh, who allegedly had no independent right, title or
interest in the suit property, while the Plaintiff and the Legal Heirs of Late
Sh. Surat Singh and Late Sh. Lal Chand, despite being in possession, were
not impleaded therein.
8. It was alleged that by suppressing the rights and possession of the
RFA 872/2026 Page 5 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:02.09.2026
16:30:47
aforesaid persons, the Judgment and Decree dated 31.08.2017 for Possession
and mesne profits was obtained, and thereafter, Execution Petition
No.1306/2017 was filed. The Plaintiff claimed that she was dispossessed
from the suit property on 17.10.2018, whereupon she acquired knowledge of
the Sale Deed dated 28.05.1956 and the earlier proceedings. She
consequently filed Objections in the Execution Proceedings on 29.10.2018
and thereafter, instituted the present Suit in January, 2019.
9. Defendant Nos.1 to 11 contested the Suit by filing their Written
Statement and also filed an Application under Order VII Rule 11 read
with Section 151 CPC, seeking rejection of the Plaint.
10. It was asserted by Defendant Nos.1 to 11 that the challenge to the
registered Sale Deed dated 28.05.1956 had been raised after more than six
decades and that Late Sh. Surat Singh and Late Sh. Lal Chand had attained
majority several decades ago, but had never questioned the Sale Deed during
their lifetime and, therefore, no surviving right could thereafter, be asserted
by the Plaintiff through their Legal Heirs. It was specifically pleaded that
Late Sh. Lal Chand died on 30.11.1984 , without having questioned the
registered Sale Deed, during his lifetime.
11. The General Power of Attorney executed in favour of the Plaintiff in
the year 2018, neither created any independent title in her favour nor could
revive a cause of action which had already become barred by limitation. It
was contended that the Judgment and Decree dated 31.08.2017 had been
passed by a competent Civil Court after due adjudication and the Plaintiff
admittedly not being a party thereto, could not seek its cancellation in the
manner prayed for.
12. Furthermore, the Suit has been deliberately undervalued for the
RFA 872/2026 Page 6 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:02.09.2026
16:30:47
purpose of Court Fee and jurisdiction and illusory cause of action has been
created through clever drafting by the Plaintiff, to overcome the statutory
bar.
13. The Plaintiff contested the Application under Order VII Rule 11
CPC and has asserted that there were several disputed questions of facts and
law which require adjudication only after recording of evidence. The Ld.
Court at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC is required to examine only the
averments contained in the Plaint and the documents filed therein. The
defense in the Written Statement, cannot be considered.
14. It is asserted that at the time of execution of registered Sale Deed
dated 28.05.1956 on behalf of the Lal Chand and Surat Singh, they were
minors. Their undivided share could not have been alienated without
obtaining permission from the competent Court, under Section 7 Guardians
and Wards Act, which provides for statutory protection against transfer
without the intervention of the competent Court.
15. It was asserted that the Suit is not barred by limitation , since the
Plaintiff had specifically pleaded fraud and concealment. The limitation
commenced only on the date when the Plaintiff and the legal heirs, acquired
knowledge of the fraudulent Sale Deed and the Decree. Section 17 of
Limitation Act postpones commencement of Limitation, in the case of fraud.
16. It was further contended that Decree dated 31.08.2017 had been
obtained by practicing fraud upon the Court, by deliberately omitting
necessary parties and the Decree was a nullity which can be challenged in
independent proceedings. The Plaintiff has continued to remain in
possession of the suit property till they were dispossessed in October, 2018
giving rise to a fresh and continuing cause of action.
RFA 872/2026 Page 7 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:02.09.2026
16:30:47
17. It was thus, contended that the Application under Order VII Rule 11
CPC was liable to be rejected.
18. The learned District Judge upon consideration of the pleadings,
material on record and the submissions advanced by the parties, observed
that Section 7 Guardian and Wards Act merely empowers a competent Court
to appoint or declare a Guardian of a person or of the property of a minor,
whenever such appointment is necessary for the welfare of the minor. It is
an enabling provision and does not make any transfer relating to the minor’s
property as void. The contention that the Sale Deed was void as it was
affected on behalf of the minor without invoking Section 7, was held to be
without merit.
19. It was further observed that the Suit was governed by Article 59 of
Schedule to Limitation Act which governs the limitation for Suits seeking
cancellation or setting aside of an instrument. The prescribed period is
three years, while this Suit had been filed much beyond the 3 years and was
barred by limitation.
20. It was also noted that the Plaintiff was not claiming any independent
right in the suit property. Her claim was founded exclusively on the General
Power of Attorney dated 05.03.2018 executed in her favour by certain Legal
Heirs of Lal Chand and Surat Singh, who had themselves never challenged
the Sale Deed during their lifetime. Therefore, the Plaintiff had no locus
standi to assert a right which had already become barred during the lifetime
of her predecessors-in-interest.
21. The plea under Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was also
rejected. The learned District Judge observed that mere use of the
expression “fraud” would not postpone the commencement of limitation
RFA 872/2026 Page 8 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:02.09.2026
16:30:47
and that the Plaint was required to disclose the specific acts constituting
fraud, the manner in which the transaction had been concealed and the
circumstances in which it came to the knowledge of the Plaintiff. It was
observed that no such material particulars had been pleaded.
22. The registered Sale Deed dated 28.05.1956 was also held to constitute
constructive notice and there was no explanation as to why Lal Chand and
Surat Singh had not questioned the transaction during their lifetime.
23. It was further observed that the challenge to the Judgment and Decree
dated 31.08.2017 was founded upon the alleged invalidity of the Sale Deed
dated 28.05.1956 and once the challenge to the foundational transaction
itself was barred by limitation, the consequential relief against the Decree
and the Execution proceedings could not survive. The allegations of fraud
and collusion in obtaining the said Decree were also held to be general and
bereft of material particulars.
24. Consequently, the learned District Judge allowed the Application
under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC filed by Defendant
Nos.1 to 11 and rejected the Plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC as being
barred by limitation.
25. Aggrieved by the rejection of the Plaint, the Appellants/Legal
Representatives of the Plaintiff have preferred the present Appeal.
26. The principal ground of challenge is that the learned District Judge
exceeded the limited jurisdiction vested in the Court, under Order VII Rule
11 CPC. It is contended that for the purpose of an Application under Order
VII Rule 11 CPC, the averments made in the Plaint were required to be
accepted as correct.
27. The Appellants further contended that the Suit was instituted within
RFA 872/2026 Page 9 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:02.09.2026
16:30:47
limitation, since the Plaintiff became aware of the Sale Deed and the Decree
only upon her dispossession on 17.10.2018, whereafter Objections were
filed in the Execution Proceedings on 29.10.2018 and the Suit was
instituted thereafter, in January, 2019. Reliance is placed upon Section 17
and Articles 56 and 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 , to contend that limitation
in cases of fraud and concealment, commences from the date on which the
relevant facts become known.
28. It is further contended that the learned District Judge erroneously
treated registration of the Sale Deed dated 28.05.1956, as constructive
notice to the Plaintiff and her predecessors. Reliance is placed upon Arabia
Bibi v. Sar Bunnisa , Regular Second Appeal No.339/1998, to contend that
registration cannot, in every case, constitute notice to a co-sharer whose
share is alleged to have been alienated without his knowledge.
29. Further, that the Sale Deed itself recorded Sh. Surat Singh and Sh. Lal
Chand as minors and the question whether the other co-owners were
competent to alienate their shares, and whether the requisite permission had
been obtained, required adjudication on evidence. Reliance is placed upon
the provisions of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 and the
Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, to contend that the undivided interest of
the minors, could not have been transferred by persons purporting to act as
their guardians without lawful authority.
30. Reliance is also placed upon Kewal Krishan v. Rajesh Kumar, (2022)
18 SCC 489, in support of the contention that the impugned transaction
could be treated as void and questioned notwithstanding the lapse of time.
31. The Appellants further assail the finding on locus standi by
contending that the Plaintiff was not claiming title under the General Power
RFA 872/2026 Page 10 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:02.09.2026
16:30:47
of Attorney dated 05.03.2018 and the underlying rights were those of Late
Sh. Surat Singh and Late Sh. Lal Chand and thereafter, of their Legal Heirs.
The nature and subsistence of those rights, therefore, could not have been
finally determined under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
32. It is further contended that the learned District Judge failed to
appreciate that the issue of limitation , in the peculiar facts pleaded in the
present case, involved disputed foundational facts concerning possession,
knowledge, concealment and fraud and was therefore, a mixed question of
fact and law which could not have been conclusively determined at the
threshold.
33. It is, therefore, asserted that the impugned Order dated 14.07.2026
virtually amounts to an adjudication of the Suit on merits at the threshold.
The Plaint, read as a whole, disclosed substantive and triable issues which
required the parties to be afforded an opportunity, to lead evidence.
34. Consequently, a prayer is made that the impugned Order and Decree
dated 14.07.2026 be set aside and the Suit be restored for adjudication in
accordance with law.
Submissions heard and record perused.
35. The present Appeal arises from rejection of the Plaint under Order VII
Rule 11(d) CPC, on the ground of limitation. The essential question for
consideration is whether, upon a meaningful reading of the Plaint and the
documents relied upon by the Plaintiff, the Suit was liable to be rejected as
being barred by limitation.
36. The scope of consideration under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is well
settled. At this stage, it is required to determine whether, upon a meaningful
RFA 872/2026 Page 11 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:02.09.2026
16:30:47
reading of the Plaint and the documents relied upon therein, the Suit is
barred by law, without reference to the defence set up in the Written
Statement.
37. In Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Charity Commissioner , (2004) 3 SCC 137,
the Supreme Court held that while considering an Application under Order
VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court is required to examine the averments contained
in the Plaint and the documents relied upon therein, while the defence set up
by the Defendant is irrelevant.
38. Thus, where the Plaintiff's own averments, expressly or by necessary
implication, disclose that the Suit is hopelessly barred by limitation, the
Court is competent to reject the Plaint at the threshold, under Order VII Rule
11(d) CPC.
39. In the present case, the Plaintiff have sought to avoid the registered
Sale Deed dated 28.05.1956 . The case pleaded is that Late Surat Singh and
Late Lal Chand were minors on the date of its execution and that their
undivided shares could not have been alienated by the other co-owners, on
their behalf. It is not the case of the Plaintiff that either Surat Singh or Lal
Chand had questioned the Sale Deed after attaining majority or at any point
during their lifetime. The challenge has been raised for the first time several
decades thereafter by the Plaintiff (since deceased), who is the wife of Sh.
Rajesh, son of Late Sh. Lal Chand,(one of the two minors), claiming to be
their Legal Heirs.
40. The contention that the Sale Deed dated 28.05.1956 was void ab initio
merely because the shares of Surat Singh and Lal Chand were alienated
during their minority, cannot be accepted. As rightly observed by the learned
District Judge, Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 is an
RFA 872/2026 Page 12 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:02.09.2026
16:30:47
enabling provision relating to appointment or declaration of a Guardian and
does not provide that every alienation concerning the property of a minor,
made without recourse thereto, is void. Even assuming that the requisite
authority or permission had not been obtained, the transaction was, at the
highest, voidable at the instance of the minors and was required to be
avoided within the period prescribed by law, i.e. within one year of their
attaining majority.
41. The material consideration, therefore, is not merely that Surat Singh
and Lal Chand were minors at the time of execution, but whether they
exercised their right to challenge the transaction after attaining majority .
Si gnificantly, the Plaint itself does not disclose that either Surat Singh
or Lal Chand had ever sought to avoid the Sale Deed, after attaining
majority or during their lifetime.
42. Their Legal Heirs could not acquire a better or larger right to question
the transaction several decades thereafter and the Plaintiff, who traces her
claim only through such Legal Heirs, necessarily stands on the same footing.
43. The contention that the Plaintiff acquired knowledge of the Sale Deed
only upon her dispossession on 17.10.2018, also does not help her case.
Even if this plea is accepted, the question is whether any right to challenge
the Sale Deed was still available to the persons through whom she claims .
The Plaintiff’s later knowledge, could not revive a right which had already
become barred by law, in the hands of Surat Singh and Lal Chand.
44. The plea under Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963 also does not
come to the aid of the Plaintiff. Though fraud and concealment have been
pleaded, the Plaint does not disclose the manner in which the Sale Deed
continued to remain concealed from Surat Singh and Lal Chand even after
RFA 872/2026 Page 13 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:02.09.2026
16:30:47
they attained majority, by whom such concealment was practised, or the
circumstances which prevented them from questioning the transaction
during their lifetime.
45. There are also no particulars of any representation made to them or of
any act by which they were prevented from asserting their rights for several
decades. A bald assertion of fraud or concealment, without the foundational
facts necessary to attract Section 17 of the Limitation Act, cannot postpone
limitation indefinitely . The subsequent plea of knowledge in October, 2018,
therefore, cannot furnish a fresh commencement of limitation for
challenging a transaction of the year 1956.
46. Moreover, merely assigning a recent date of knowledge to a
transaction which had remained unquestioned by the persons directly
affected thereby for several decades, cannot create a fresh cause of action.
47. The reliance of the Appellants upon Article 56 of the Schedule to the
Limitation Act, 1963, is equally misplaced. Article 56 of the Schedule to
the Limitation Act, 1963 reads as under:
Description of suit Period of limitation Time from which period begins
to run
56. To declare the forgery of an
Three years When the issue or registration
instrument issued or registered.
becomes known to the plaintiff.
48. Article 56 applies to a Suit seeking a declaration that an instrument is
forged. In the present case, the Plaintiff has neither pleaded that the Sale
Deed dated 28.05.1956 was fabricated or forged, nor disputed its execution
on that basis. Her challenge is that the shares of the minors were alienated
without lawful authority and requisite permission. The relief, in substance, is
RFA 872/2026 Page 14 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:02.09.2026
16:30:47
therefore, one for setting aside or avoiding the Sale Deed and not for
declaring an instrument to be forged. Article 56 has, consequently, no
application to the present Suit.
49. The General Power of Attorney dated 05.03.2018 could neither revive
the right to challenge the Sale Deed nor place the Plaintiff in a position
better than that of the persons through whom she is claiming a title. A Power
of Attorney merely authorises the attorney to act on behalf of the principal
and does not create or enlarge the substantive rights of the executant. The
Plaintiff could, therefore, assert only such rights as continued to subsist in
favour of the legal heirs of Surat Singh and Lal Chand. The finding of the
learned District Judge on this aspect, therefore, cannot be faulted.
50. The contention that limitation necessarily raised a mixed question of
fact and law requiring trial also does not merit acceptance. In the case of
Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. v. Hede & Co., (2007) 5 SCC 614, it was held that
rejection of a Plaint on the ground of limitation is permissible where the Suit
appears, upon a meaningful reading of the Plaint itself, to be barred by law.
51. Likewise, in the case of T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, AIR 1977
SC 2421, the Supreme Court cautioned that where clever drafting creates
only an illusion of a cause of action, the same must be dealt with at the
threshold. The plea of knowledge in October, 2018, therefore, cannot revive
a substantive challenge which had already become barred during the lifetime
of Surat Singh and Lal Chand.
52. Where the bar of limitation is apparent from the averments contained
in the Plaint itself, the Court is competent to consider the same at the
threshold under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.
53. Likewise, the dispossession of the Plaintiff on 17.10.2018 cannot
RFA 872/2026 Page 15 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:02.09.2026
16:30:47
create a fresh cause of action, to reopen the Sale Deed executed more than
six decades earlier. Once the claim in respect of Sale Deeds was not
challenged by the predecessor in interest, the Plaintiff cannot claim a better
title and date on which she acquired knowledge of the earlier proceedings,
cannot revive a remedy which had already become barred.
54. The learned District Judge has, therefore, rightly allowed the
Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by Defendant Nos.1 to 11
and rejected the Plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, as being barred by
limitation.
55. No ground for interference with the impugned Order dated
14.07.2026, is made out. The present Appeal is without merit and is,
accordingly dismissed . Pending Application(s), if any, are also disposed of.
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
AUGUST 20, 2026/RS
RFA 872/2026 Page 16 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:02.09.2026
16:30:47