A suit seeking declaratory relief under the Limitation Act must be filed within the stipulated period, failing which it is liable for dismissal, irrespective of the praying party's claims of ignorance or lack of knowledge.

JUDGMENT :

MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

1. Heard Mr. Narvankar, learned Advocate for Applicants; Dr. Chandrachud, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 1 and Ms. Desai, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 15. None present for the other Respondents.

2. Applicant No.2 - M/s. Mahabharat Builders in the Civil Revision Application (CRA) is Defendant No. 15 in the suit. Principal contesting Respondent is Respondent No.1 who is Plaintiff in the Suit. Plaintiff filed the suit on 02.05.2023 seeking a declaration that the registered Sale Deed dated 20.03.1969 executed between grandfather of Plaintiff and one Shankarrao Parshuram Jadhav, predecessor-in-title of Defendant No. 1 to 10 and another registered Sale Deed dated 15.04.2008 executed between Defendant No.1 to Defendant No.10 and Defendant No.11 to Defendant No.15, be declared illegal, null and void and not binding on Plaintiff and be cancelled and set aside.

3. Defendant No. 11 to 15 filed Application below Exhibit [-] under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "CPC") for rejection of the Suit Plaint. By the impugned order dated 29.11.2023, learned Trial Court dismissed the Application on the ground of no cause of action and holding that on reading of the Suit Plaint it was concluded that Plaintiff became aware of the impugned registered Sale Deeds dated 20.03.1969 and 15.04.2008 only in the year 2022 for the first time.

4. Briefly stated, the following facts are necessary for adjudication of the present CRA:-

4.1. Applicant No.2 is the original Defendant No.15 in Special Civil Suit No.281 of 2023. Respondent No.1 is the original Plaintiff while the other Respondents are the remaining Defendants.

4.2. Suit property is part of the larger property ad measuring 7075.20 square meters which was owned by Mr. Domingo C. Fernandes the great grandfather of Plaintiff. Upon his demise on 23.06.1946, Suit property was bequeathed to his 6 sons namely Robert, Cecil, Victor, Eric, Arthur and John as per his Will dated 22.10.1944 which was probated. There was one condition stated in the Will, that the Suit property could not be transferred outside the family. On 20.03.1969, Robert, one of the 6 sons, sold his share in the undivided Suit property to Mr. Shankarrao Parshuram Jadhav through a registered sale deed. Similarly, the other 5 sons of Domingo also sold their undivided share in the larger property which came to their share to the same purchaser, Mr. Shankarrao Parshuram Jadhav by registered sale deeds. Subsequently, the suit property was conveyed and sold further by Defendants Nos.1 to 10 namely legal heirs of Mr. Shankarrao Jadhav to Defendant Nos. 11 to 15 by a registered sale deed dated 15.04.2008. Mutation entries were accordingly carried out in the revenue records pursuant to the aforesaid two registered sale deeds in 1969 and 2008.

4.3. Mr. Victor Fernandes, one of the 6 sons of Mr. Domingo Fernandes filed revenue proceedings in the year 1989 for the first time to challenge the mutation entries effected pursuant to the sale deed dated 20.03.1969. On 23.06.2008, order was passed in Revision proceedings by the Revenue Minister in favour of legal heirs of Shankarrao P. Jadhav (Defendant Nos. 1 to 10) and the challenge to the revenue entries came to be rejected. After 13 years, legal heirs of Mr. David Fernandes (father of Plaintiff) reopened the same proceedings before the Revenue Minister but it stood rejected by