1. Heard.

2. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is, as to whether proceedings initiated by the predecessor of respondent Nos. 1(i) to 1(iii) in the form of suit for declaration, permanent injunction and specific performance of contract, deserved to be nipped in the bud by rejection of plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation. An application filed by the defendant in the aforesaid suit under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), for rejection of plaint was allowed in the first instance by the trial Court. But, on an appeal filed by the plaintiff, the order of the Trial Court was reversed and the suit was restored for being decided on merits.

4. The predecessor of respondent Nos. 1(i) to 1(iii) i.e. the plaintiff Tukaram Dhagekar had filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and specific performance of contract on 29.06.2011, claiming that a registered sale deed dated 13.10.1983 was executed by the said plaintiff in favour of Kanibai Agrawal, wife of defendant no.1 (respondent no.2 herein) in respect of the suit prope