C.V. Bhadang, J.

The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 18.10.2005, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Panaji in Special Civil Suit No. 27/04/B. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Court has rejected the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC, for short), as being barred by limitation.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal may be stated thus:

That, now deceased-Jahangir Karanjia (the original plaintiff), filed the aforesaid suit against the respondent for declaration that the original plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession of the suit property, more specifically described in paragraph 1 of the plaint. The original plaintiff also sought declaration that the Certificate of Sale dated 30.06.1973 granted in Execution Case No. 24/1970, in favour of the respondent/defendant, is null and void and is therefore liable to be delivered and cancelled. The appellants are the legal representatives of the original plaintiff.

3. The case made out in the plaint was that the suit property happens to be a plot situated at Marvel, Donapaula, which is said to be the part of the larger property, which belonged to one Rui Braganza and his wife Schrumpf De Braganza, which was purchased by the original plaintiff and his daughter Ms. Chandralekha by Deed of Sale dated 22.08.1968. Subsequently, by a Deed of Release dated 30.03.1984, Ms. Chandralekha, released all her rights in the suit property in favour of the original plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, he has been in lawful, exclusive and physical possession of the suit property from the time of its purchase. By an order dated 08.01.1985, the City Survey Officer allotted Chalta No. 3 of P.T. Sheet No. 191 to the suit property and accordingly, the title and possession of the original plaintiff over the suit property was confirmed.

4. Somewhere in February, 2001, the original plaintiff received a notice from the Directorate of Settlement and Land Records, informing him that an appeal filed by the defendant relating to the suit property is fixed for hearing on 22.02.2001 before the said Authority. The original plaintiff accordingly obtained a copy of the memo of appeal, on which he learnt that the defendant had challenged the order dated 08.01.1985, passed by the Inquiry Officer, City Survey, by which the title and possession of the original plaintiff was confirmed. The original plaintiff also learnt that the defendant is claiming to be the owner of the suit property, on the basis of the Certificate of Sale dated 30.06.1973, under which the defendant claimed that she has purchased the suit property in an auction in execution of Decree in Execution Case No. 24/1970. The said execution proceedings arose from the suit filed by Mrs. Tereza Mawani against Rui Braganza and his wife Shrumpf De Braganza, the predecessor in title of the original plaintiff. The defendant contended in the appeal that the confirmation of the possession and the title of the suit property in favour of the original plaintiff was done without any notice to her.

5. It is in these circumstances that the original plaintiff filed the suit, seeking declaration about his ownership and the Certificate of Sale dated 30.06.1973, being null and void and for cancellation of the same.

6. In the plaint paragraph 12, the original plaintiff claimed that the cause of action for filing the suit arose on 22.02.2001, when the plaintiff for the first time learnt about the purported purchase of the suit property by the defendant under the Certificate of Sale dated 30.06.1973. It was thus contended that the suit, which was filed on 19.02.2004 was within limitation.

7. The respondent appeared in the suit and filed an application (Exhibit-7) under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of CPC. It was contended that the original plaintiff has referred to and relied upon the order dated