The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right to sue depends on the actual cause of action, and an illusory cause of action created by clever drafting in the plaint can lead to the rejection of the plaint as time-barred.

JUDGMENT

1. The applicants herein are the original defendant Nos.1 and 2 in Regular Civil Suit No.34/2015/D. Respondent Nos.1 to 9 are the original plaintiffs. Respondent Nos.10 to 16 are the remaining defendants.

2. By way of revision, the applicants are challenging the impugned order dated 08/01/2016 whereby their application filed at Exh.26 under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC came to be rejected.

3. Heard learned Counsel Shri I. Agha appearing for the applicants and the learned Counsel Ms. Asha Desai appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 9 and 13 to 16. The only aspect which requires consideration is whether the cause of action as shown in the plaint is illusory only to bring other reliefs which were already time-barred.

4. The learned Counsel Shri Agha, strenuously urged that on a plain reading of the plaint along with documents relied upon by the plaintiffs, shows that the suit filed for injunction and declaration is clearly barred by law of limitation. In this respect he submitted that the learned Trial Court in the impugned order though accepted that the prayers regarding declaration are time-barred, however, observed that the plaint cannot be rejected in part as plaint discloses a cause of action with regard to a claim of injunction which is not a consequential relief. He, therefore, submitted that the learned Trial Court completely misconstrued the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd v/s. Hade and Company, (2007)5 SCC 614. He placed reliance on the decision of Shri Jahangir @Jawahar and others v/s. Smt. Maureen de Sequeira, 2017(2) Goa L.R.168 (Bom)(PB) and in the case of T. Arvindandam v/s. T.V. Satyapal and Another, (1977) 4 SCC 467.

5. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents Ms. Asha Desai forcefully submitted that the learned Trial Court has considered all the pleadings and came to the right conclusion and there is no need for any interference. She submitted that the respondents are the co-owners and therefore a declaration is sought with regard to co-ownership and for that purpose, the cause of action arose in the year 2015 as claimed in paragraph No.30. She, therefore, submits that the respondents/plaintiffs cannot be non-suited at the initial stage with regard to their valuable right of co-ownership of the suit property.

6. Respondent Nos.1 to 9 filed a suit against the present appellants who are defendant Nos.1 and 2 and others bearing Regular Civil Suit No.34 of 2015 before Senior Civil Judge at Panaji claiming therein permanent injunction, declaration and cancellation/declaration of Sale Deed, Deed of rectification and Will as null and void.

7. In nutshell, it is the pleading in the suit that the plaintiffs along with defendant Nos.3 to 9 are the legal representatives of late Eduardo Zeferino Xavier Pereira and late Smt. Marcilia Oliveira Pereira. The said Eduardo Zeferino Xavier Pereira and his wife owned various properties which include property bearing Survey No.142/1 of Village Murda, Tiswadi, Goa. Late Eduardo Zeferino Xavier Pereira expired on 02/06/1949 and accordingly succession open and right to his estate devolved upon his three daughters namely plaintiff No.1, defendant No.3 and defendant No.6. Therefore, the plaintiffs claimed that they along with defendant Nos.3 to 9 are the co-owners of the property bearing Survey No.142/1, 143/1 of Village Murda, Tiswadi, Goa along with other properties left by late Eduardo Zeferino Xavier Pereira and his wife.

8. It is further claimed in the plaint that vide Sale Deed 09/01/1998 and Deed of rectification dated 10/07/1998, defendant Nos.3 to 5 purportedly sold the property bearing survey No.142/1 admeasuring 6223 sq.mts. and part of property bearing survey number 143/ 1 admission in 2656 sq. metres to defendant No.1. The plaintiffs claim that the said property described in the sale deed has to be considered as suit property for the suit. The plaintiffs were not aware of the execution of the Sale Deed.

9. It is further con