The rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on grounds of limitation requires a full trial when the issue involves mixed questions of law and fact.

JUDGMENT :

R. MAHADEVAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. This Civil Appeal arises out of the final judgment and order dated 03.09.2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras¹[For short, “the High Court”] in CRP(NPD) No. 131 of 2018, whereby the High Court allowed the Civil Revision Petition filed by Respondent No.1 and rejected the plaint filed by the appellant under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908²[For short, “CPC”] on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation.

3. Originally, the appellant/plaintiff instituted a suit bearing O.S. No. 310 of 2014 before the Principal District Court, Chengalpet, against the respondents/defendants and the Government authorities for the following reliefs:

(i) Declaring that the appellant is the legal owner of the suit schedule property,

(ii) Issuing a permanent injunction against Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 restraining them from causing any interruption on the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the appellant,

(iii) Declaring the sale deed bearing No. 303/1993 dated 10.10.1988 registered in Pudukottai Sub Registration Office, Tuticorin District, in favour of Defendant No. 1 with respect to the suit schedule property as null and void,

(iv) Declaring the Settlement Deed bearing No. 1493/2012 dated 16.04.2012 registered in Alandur Sub Registration Office executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant No. 2 with respect to the suit schedule property as null and void,

(v) Declaring the General Power of Attorney Deed bearing No. 3725/2012 dated 31.12.2012 registered in Alandur Sub Registration Office executed by Defendant No. 2 in favour of Defendant No. 3 with respect to the suit schedule property as null and void,

(vi) Issuing a permanent injunction that Defendant No. 5 should not register any document created by Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 with respect to the suit schedule property except the appellant,

(vii) Issuing a permanent injunction directing Defendant No. 5 not to issue building plan permit to Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 except the appellant for the construction of new building in the suit schedule property, and

(viii) Cost of the suit to be paid by the Defendants to the appellant.

4. It was alleged in the plaint that the appellant was assigned a vacant site by the Special Tahsildar, Saidapet, Tamil Nadu, on 05.05.1974. He constructed a roof house and was in possession and enjoyment of the said property by paying tax and other charges. While so, he executed a Power of Attorney in favour of his father, K. Pothikannu Pillai, which was registered on 06.01.1978 as Document No. 04-11- 101-102-3/1978 in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Thallakulam, Madurai, for the purposes of putting up construction, entering into agreement, and performing other relevant activities. Contrary to the same, the father of the appellant executed a sale deed on 10.10.1988, in favour of the second respondent/Defendant No.1/granddaughter vide Document No. 303/1993 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Pudukottai, which according to the appellant, was illegal, as the Power of Attorney did not authorize his father to alienate the property. After coming to know about the same, the appellant approached the Additional Commissioner of Police, Chennai and gave a complaint on 09.12.2011 under Land Grabbing Cell against the family of Defendant No. 1. Subsequently, the appellant applied for the individual patta to the Special Tahsildar, Alandur, on 24.02.2012 and also made a representation to Defendant No. 4 not to register any document with respect to the suit schedule property. In the meanwhile, the father of the appellant had died. Following the same, the second respondent/Defendant No.1 executed a settlement deed in favour of the third respondent/Defendant No.2 vide Document No. 1198/2012 on 16.04.2012. Subsequently, the third respondent/Defendant No.2 executed a General Power of attorney deed in favour of the first respondent/Defendant No.3 on 31.12.2012. Thereafter, the defendants made applicatio