IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that the plaintiff's suit was timely as she only discovered the fraudulent sale deed in October 2023, emphasizing that limitation is a mixed question of fact and law.

JUDGMENT :

U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 05.03.2024 in I.A. No. 10/2024 in O.S No. 87/2023 passed by learned VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa allowing the petition filed by the petitioner/defendant No. 1 under order VII rule 11 C.P.C. seeking to reject the plaint, the instant appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiff.

2. The matrix of the case is thus:

(a) The plaintiff filed O.S No. 87/2023 for declaration of her title and for delivery of vacant possession of the suit schedule property and also for a declaration that the registered sale deed dated 30.10.1998 alleged to have been executed by the plaintiff and her mother-in-law in favour of 2nd defendant is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and also for a mandatory injunction for removal of the structures thereon.

(b) The plaintiff's case briefly is that the suit schedule property situated in Pulivendula Mandal was belonged to Veluru Papi Reddy, who purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 18.05.1961 and he sold the same to the plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 13.05.1996 and ever since purchase, the plaintiff has been enjoying the same.

(c) While so, the plaintiff left for Telangana State along with her husband and settled there. Taking the absence of plaintiff as an undue advantage, the 2nd defendant got created a fraudulent document styling as a registered sale deed dated 30.10.1998 vide document No. 4666 /1998 allegedly executed by the plaintiff and her mother-in-law late Eswaramma and highhandedly occupied the suit schedule property. The sale deed is rank forgery and the plaintiff is no way concerned with the said document. Basing on the said forged document, the 2nd defendant along with two others executed a registered mortgage deed dated 18.03.2000 vide document No. 249/2000, in favour of Boggudupalli Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society and obtained a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the said society. Subsequently, the 2nd defendant redeemed the mortgage loan to the said society vide document No. 150/2006 and subsequently the 2nd defendant executed a registered sale deed dated 26.12.2005 vide document No. 3600/2005 in favour of one Sirigireddy Gangi Reddy and delivered possession of suit schedule property. The said purchaser executed a registered gift settlement deed dated 25.01.2012 vide document No. 253/2012 in favour of 1st defendant and delivered possession of suit schedule property.

(d) The plaintiff's further case is that in the month of October, 2023 when the plaintiff visited suit schedule vicinity to clear the cheeky bushes, to her surprise and dismay the 1st defendant obstructed her claiming himself as owner of the suit schedule property and thereafter the petitioner made enquiries with the SRO Office, Pulivendula and came to know about all the sham and invalid transactions referred supra. Immediately, in the 1st week of November, 2023 the plaintiff went to the defendants and demanded them to handover the suit schedule property and cooperate with her for cancellation of the bogus documents. However, the defendants bluntly refused to comply with her demand and threatened her with dire consequences. Hence the suit.

(e) 1st defendant filed the written statement and the defendants are contesting the suit.

3. While so, the 1st defendant filed I.A. No. 10/2024 under order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking to reject the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff has, in plaint averments admitted the execution of sale deeds and gift deed and also admitted the possession of the 1st defendant over the suit schedule property and filed the suit after a lapse of 25 years of execution of registered sale deed dated 30.10.1998 in favour of the 2nd defendant and therefore the suit is barred by limitation and hence the plaint is liable to be rejected:

(a) The plaintiff filed the counter and opposed the petition contending that the facts that the 2nd defendant created a forged sale deed dated 30.10.1998 and later alienated the same in