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 property, which was located in Survey No. 24/1, district Akola. It was claimed that the said sale deed was nominal and that it was executed by way of security for a loan transaction and further that an agreement was executed in the year 1986 in favour of the plaintiff, wherein it was agreed that a sale deed would be executed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the said suit property by accepting five times valuation and that it was specifically stated in the said agreement that such sale deed would be executed upto 13.10.1997. It was claimed that the said agreement was executed by the said defendant no.1 in favour of the plaintiff.

5. The plaintiff further contended that in view of the said agreement stamp papers were purchased on 1.12.1986 for execution of sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, but, the defendant no.1 expressed that if the sale deed was executed within 12 years, capital gains tax would be charged and that, therefore, the sale deed was not executed and the stamp papers were returned. Thereafter, in March 1987, it is alleged that defendant no.1 expressed that when the sale deed could be executed upto 13.10.1997 and when the plaintiff himself was in possession of the suit property, portions of which were disposed of in the form of plots, the sale deed could be executed subsequently. Thereafter, again on 11.07.1997 the plaintiff purchased stamp papers for execution of the sale deed in terms of the said agreement but, again the defendant no.1 avoided execution of the sale deed on the ground that capital gains would be created in favour of his wife Kanibai. It is the case of the plaintiff in the suit that the said Kanibai and her husband defendant no.1 agreed that the sale deed could be executed at any time as and when demanded by the plaintiff because only formality of registration of sale deed remained to be completed, particularly when the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property and he had sold part of the same.

6. It is further the case of the plaintiff that in the year 2002, he sold seven plots from the suit land on which the defendant no.1 had put his signature as witness on the sale deeds. This demonstrated that the defendant no.1 was party to such transactions. Thereafter on 5.5.2006, Kanibai died. In the year 2011, according to the plaintiff, the defendant Nos. 1 to 6 were intending to execute sale deed in respect of the suit land as legal heirs of deceased Kanibai, in favour of defendant no.7. Immediately, the plaintiff issued public notice in newspaper on 15.04.2011 informing the public at large that no one should enter into any transaction in respect of the suit property. But, the said defendants published a reply denying the claim of the plaintiff and further on 19.05.2011 a notice was published through advocate on beha