Legal Heirs Substituted upon Devolution of Interest are Protected from Limitation Under Section 21(2) of Limitation Act

In a 2014 partition suit decree (C.S. No. 82/2004), a condition was set that co-sharers must give preference to each other before selling property to strangers

On 18.05.2020, Defendant No. 1 sold his allotted share to the Petitioner (Defendant No. 2) via registered sale deed

Consequently, the original Plaintiff (Mahesh Prasad Singhsamant), through his Power of Attorney (PoA) holder, filed C.S. No. 6 of 2021 seeking cancellation of the sale deed

Following the original Plaintiff's death on 10.04.2021, his legal heirs (Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3) were substituted on 17.11.2023

The Petitioner filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint, arguing the suit was barred by limitation and filed by an unauthorized PoA holder

The trial court rejected this application on 09.02.2025, leading to this revision

1. Whether the suit was maintainable at its inception given that the Power of Attorney holder allegedly lacked specific authority over the suit property

2. Whether the suit is barred by limitation under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, considering the substituted plaintiffs were added more than three years after the sale deed execution

The court applied Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC regarding the rejection of a plaint barred by law

It interpreted Order III Rule 2 of the CPC, which recognizes PoA holders as authorized agents for legal appearances

Key reliance was placed on Section 21 of the Limitation Act, 1963; specifically, Section 21(2), which provides an exception to the general rule of "date of substitution" in cases where a party is added due to the devolution of interest during pendency

Additionally, the court noted Article 59 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes a three-year period for the cancellation of instruments

Regarding the PoA's validity, the court observed that while the schedule in the PoA listed specific plots, Clause-2 broadly authorized the agent to "demand, recover, and enforce" rights in respect of *all* property the Principal may be entitled to

Since the suit sought to enforce a right of pre-emption derived from a compromise decree, the court held the agent had at least prima facie authority to lay the claim, making it a matter for trial rather than summary rejection

On the issue of limitation, the Petitioner argued that under Section 21(1), the suit began for the substituted plaintiffs only on 17.11.2023

However, the court found this argument ignored Section 21(2), which stipulates that the "date of substitution" rule does not apply when substitution occurs due to death and the resulting devolution of interest

Since the original suit was filed within time (2021) relative to the sale deed (2020), the substitution of legal heirs did not restart the limitation clock

The court held that the suit was maintainable as the PoA holder possessed broad enforcement powers

and that the suit was not barred by limitation because the substitution of legal heirs fell under the exception of Section 21(2) of the Limitation Act

The court clarified that the merits of the pre-emption claim remain subject to trial