JUDGMENT :

ABHAY AHUJA, J.

1. By this Appeal, the Appellant, who was the original plaintiff in Suit No. 777 of 2014 (the “suit”) is seeking to impugn the order and judgment dated 8 and 11 September 2015 of dismissal of the suit passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court holding the suit as barred by limitation.

2. The facts that comprise the background of this ligation are that by a family arrangement of 1995-96, the businesses and assets of the Gopal Raheja group consisting of Late Gopal Raheja (also known as Mr. G.L. Raheja), the Appellant, the Respondent no. 1, Respondent no. 2 and Respondent no. 5 vested in the Appellant, Respondent no. 1, 5 and their father Mr. Gopal Raheja, Appellant herein (the Plaintiff in the suit) is the eldest daughter of late Gopal L. Raheja who passed away on 18 March 2014. The Respondent no. 1 herein (the Defendant No. 1 in the suit), is the son of late Gopal L. Raheja and younger brother of the Plaintiff. Respondent No. 2 herein (the Defendant no. 2 in the suit), is the wife of Defendant no. 1/Respondent No. 1. The Respondents No. 3 and 4 herein (the Defendants No. 3 and 4 in the suit), Gayatri and Aditi, were the minor daughters of Defendant no. 1/Respondent No. 1 and Defendant no. 2/Respondent No. 2 and grand-daughters of late Gopal L. Raheja. The Respondent no. 5 herein (the Defendant no. 5 in the suit), is the younger daughter of late Gopal L. Raheja and younger sister of the Plaintiff/Appellant. The Plaintiff/Appellant and the Defendants no. 1 and 5/Respondents No. 1 and 5 are closely related to each other as brother and sisters being the children of late Gopal L. Raheja and his wife late Sheila G. Raheja. The Appellant claims that the vesting was equal and collective and that the Appellant was entitled to her share in the assets and properties of the Gopal Raheja group which is denied by the Respondents.

3. It is the case of the Appellant that the family arrangement of 1995-96 as well as of 1987 and Gopal Raheja’s Suit No. 2363 of 2012, would show that Gopal Raheja was the karta of the Gopal Raheja HUF and Respondent no. 1 was a party to the family arrangement and even signed the same. Although the Respondent no. 1 does not dispute his signature on the family arrangement, the share of the Appellant is denied by him. It is claimed that first Respondent’s signature amounts to judicial admission binding on him in view of the settled law and therefore the exception in Section 4(3)(a) of the Benami Act would apply to him. That, therefore, the present suit is not barred by the prohibition contained in the Benami Act in the light of Sections 2(9)(A)(b)(i) and (ii) and Section 4(3)(b) of the said Act.

4. Further, with respect to the issue of limitation, the Appellant’s case is that the cause of action arose on 28 January 2012 when Respondent no. 1 for the first time derogated from the family arrangement of 1995-96 and sought to espouse an oral family arrangement of 1952. The suit was filed on 1 August 2014 and it is submitted that therefore the suit is not barred by limitation.

5. The learned Single Judge was called upon to decide the following two preliminary issues which were framed under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the “CPC”):

“(a) Whether the suit as filed is barred under the provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (the “Benami Act”)?

(b) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?”

6. The learned Single Judge observed that the issues of limitation and benami were mixed questions of fact and law requiring evidence. Paragraphs 2, 13, 15, 24, 28, 29 and 30 of the said impugned decision are usefully quoted as under:

“2. Before I proceed to the merits, I note that not only has the Plaintiff, Sabita Narang (“Sabita”) on previous occasions declined to lead any evidence on either of these preliminary issues but even more startling, when, earlier this morning, after having heard Ms. Iyer for Sabita for a little over an hour, I asked her to take instructions, she wa