The limitation period for challenging registered sale deeds starts upon acquiring knowledge of the transaction, not merely from the registration date, reaffirming the necessity of trial for evidentiary issues.

ORDER :

Shailesh P. Brahme, J.

Heard both sides finally with their consent at admission stage. The contesting parties are before the Court and it was indicated earlier that revision should be decided finally which was agreed upon by the learned counsels.

2. Applicants are questioning order dated 03.05.2024 passed below Exhibit 21 in R.C.S. No. 1688 of 2022 declining to reject the plaint. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are original plaintiffs in R.C.S. No. 1688 of 2022 filed for the relief of partition, separate possession, declaration and injunction.

3. The applicants are original defendant Nos. 11, 10 and 15 respectively. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are related intere-se which is evident from genealogy mentioned in para No. 2 of the plaint. The subject matter is 09 Acres 45 Guntha land of gut No. 24 situated at village Nakshtrawadi, albeit total area of land is 11H 37R. The parties are referred by their original status in the suit.

4. The plaintiffs are the grand children of the defendant No. 1. The plaintiffs and the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 constitute a branch of which the subject matter is undivided property. It is pleaded in the plaint that defendant No. 1 – Appasaheb was not the exclusive owner of the suit land, but he alienated different parcels of the suit land without there being any legal necessity. It has been specifically mentioned in para No. 3, 9, 17, 20 to 22 that the alienation made by the defendant No. 1 – Appasaheb were bad in law as he was addicted to liquor and did not care for interest of members of the family. The following alienations made by him to other defendants are challenged in the plaint.

i) The defendant No. 1 sold 61R land to the defendant No. 5 on 16.07.1984.

ii) The defendant No. 1 sold 1H 21R land to the defendant No. 6 on 16.07.1984.

iii) The defendant No. 1 sold 01 Acres 05 Guntha land to the defendant No. 7 on 14.10.1993.

iv) The defendant No. 1 sold 01 Acres land to the defendant No. 8 on 14.10.1993.

v) The defendant No. 1 sold 01 Acres land to the defendant No. 9 on 14.10.1993.

5. The purchasers from the defendant No. 1 further alienated the properties to defendant Nos. 10 to 15 by different sale deeds. The alienations are castigated to be without consent of defendant Nos. 2 to 4 and illegal. The defendant Nos. 10 to 15 are stated to be in possession of the land and they are about to develop, sell and alienate the plots thereof. The cause of action is stated to be the knowledge of the plaintiffs on 19.10.2022.

6. The plaintiffs are stated to have paid court fees for the relief of partition, declaration and perpetual injunction. Accordingly, they have prayed for partition, declaration that the sale deeds are not binding upon them and perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from constructing – developing, changing the nature of the suit land and/or creating any third party interest in it.

7. Applicants preferred application Exhibit 21 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for the sake of brevity and convenience hereinafter referred as to the “C.P.C.”) for rejection of the plaint, on the ground of want of cause of action, the reliefs are barred by limitation and for not valuing the suit property as per the market price as per Sec. 6(viii) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act and consequentially for want of proper court fees. The plaintiffs contested the application. It is contended that they are ready to value the su