The court emphasized that the cause of action must be determined from the facts pleaded in the plaint, and the limitation issue can be apparent from the admitted facts.

Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.

1. The plaintiffs-appellants-appellants have filed this second appeal against the appellate court judgment and decree dated 13.11.2006 passed by Additional District Judge-7th, Patna in Title Appeal No. 60 of 2006 whereby the lower appellate court dismissed the title appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 3.5.2006 passed by Sub Judge-3rd, Patna in Title Suit No.69 of 2006 whereby the appellants plaint was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 (a and d) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The plaintiffs filed the aforesaid Title Suit No. 69 of 2006 praying for a decree for specific performance of the contract for absolute conveyance of the land measuring 3 kattha 3 dhur described in schedule 2 of the plaint with full and absolute ownership as contained and envisaged in the compromise petition ending in decree dated 18.3.1980 in Title Eviction suit No. 70 of 1967 by the court of execution Munsif, Patna be passed in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants – 1st party who be directed to execute and register deed of conveyance in favour of the plaintiffs and defendants – 2nd set within a reasonable time and the possession of the plaintiffs over the land in suit be confirmed and permanent injunction be granted restraining the defendants – 1st party from dispossessing the plaintiffs in any manner who are in possession of the suit property in part performance of the contract aforesaid and if the plaintiffs are dispossessed during the pendency of the suit, decree for recovery of possession with mesne profit in their favour. The plaintiffs also prayed that the defendants – 1st set be restrained by an order of temporary injunction from dispossessing the plaintiffs by executing the decree of Title Suit No. 61 of 1986 in any other manner till the disposal of the suit.

3. The trial court after perusal of the facts stated in the plaint and the documents filed with the plaint by deemed decree dated 3.5.2006 rejected the plaint holding that no cause of action is disclosed and the suit is barred by law of limitation. The plaintiffs then filed title appeal before the lower appellate court. The lower appellate court also by the impugned judgment confirmed the finding of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Against these judgments of both the courts below, the present second appeal has been filed.

4. For better appreciation of the case the facts alleged in the plaint may be stated briefly that the lands described in schedule 1 of the plaint measuring 15 kattha 8 dhurs more or less being 100 feet long east to west, 210 feet long north to south in ward No. 10 Patna Municipal Corporation belonged to late Sri Tripurari Charan Palit, the grand father of the defendant No.1. The father of the plaintiffs namely Sri Surya Narayan Gupta took lease of vacant land on 25.8.1946 for a period of 29 years with an option of automatic renewal of said lease for further period of 10 years on a rental increase of 25% over the initial monthly rent of Rs.205/- by registered lease deed effective from 1.1.1947. The lessee was given right for making construction and as a matter of fact he constructed a triple storied pucca building on the western side with three shops and number of rooms, shades etc. for letting out to tenants and spent about over Rs.1,00,000/-. Sri Tripurari Charan Palit wrongly filed Title Suit No. 17 of 1967 before termination of lease for declaration of the termination of the lease and for possession of the premises. Written statement was filed by Surya Narayan Gupta. However, the parties compromised and a compromise petition was filed incorporating the terms and conditions which was accepted by the court and the suit was decreed in terms of the compromise by which the compromise application formed part of the decree dated 18.3.1980. In the plaint the terms and conditions of the compromise decree has been quoted which is being reproduced hereinbelow:

“(i) That the defendant Surya Narain