The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 7 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and Articles 59 and 60 of the Limitation Act to determine the time-barred nature of the suit, along with the capacity of the eldest son to represent the Hindu undivided family and give a valid discharge on behalf of the other plaintiffs.

Indermeet Kaur, J.

1. This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2007 which had endorsed the finding of the trial judge dated 16.04.2005whereby the suit filed by the Plaintiff Sh. Murli Singh seeking declaration and injunction (to the effect that the suit land be declared as an ancestral property and Defendant Nos. 3 to 5 be restrained from getting any sale deed executed in regard to the suit land; Plaintiff be not dispossessed; further the agreement to sell dated 13.01.1961 and the decree dated 02.02.1973 in suit No. 395/1961 as modified in RFA No. 52/1973 and RFA No. 80/1973 be also declared null and void) had been decreed. Impugned judgment had reversed this finding; suit stood dismissed.

2. The Plaintiffs (13 in number) and Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are members of joint Hindu family; their common Ancestor was Tulsi (a) Popi. He had two sons namely Roomal and Jodha (Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 respectively). Plaintiff Nos. 1 to 7 & 12 are the sons of Defendant No. 1 and Plaintiff No. 8 to 11 and Plaintiff No. 13 are the sons of Defendant No. 2. The case of the Plaintiff is that the suit land was an ancestral property; their father Tulsi had inherited it from their grandfather; Plaintiffs being governed by the Mitakshra School of Hindu Law have interest in said joint family property. On 13.01.1961, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had entered into an agreement to sell qua the suit property with Defendant nos 3 to 5; Plaintiffs came to know about this agreement on 30.01.1985. On enquiry, it was revealed that Defendant Nos. 3 to 5 had filed a suit for specific performance (suit No. 395/61) qua this agreement to sell dated 13.01.191; this suit was decreed in favour of Defendant No. 3 by the court of Sh. O.P. Diwedi on 02.02.73 whereby the Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 had been directed to executed the sale deed in favour of Defendant No.

3. The RFA No. 80/1973 was allowed by the High Court; vide judgment dated 14.01.1985, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were ordered to execute the sale deed qua Defendant Nos. 3 to 5 within one month. The case of the Plaintiff is that they were minors at the time when Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 executed the agreement to sell and this agreement being against their interest was not binding upon them. Suit was accordingly filed with the aforenoted prayers.

4. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed their written statement; they admitted the averments in the plaint; they supported the case of the Plaintiffs being the fathers of the Plaintiffs.

5. Defendant No. 3 and 4 had also contested the suit. It was stated that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have sold the property to Defendant No. 3 vide agreement to sell dated 13.01.1961; the Plaintiff had complete knowledge of the proceedings. In the High Court, a local commissioner had been appointed who had visited the suit property wherein he had noted the presence of Mr. Murli Singh and Mr. K.V. Sharma; this was on 20.02.1981. The suit was even otherwise barred by limitation. It was denied that the suit property was a joint family property.

6. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

1. Whether the land in question bearing khasra No. 208/132/1 situated in village Zamrudpur, Delhi is an ancestral land, as alleged in Plaint? OPP

2. Whether the alleged agreement to sell dt. 13.01.1961 and decree dt. 02.02.73 in suit No. 395/71 (1951) as given in the plaint are null and void and not binding on Plaintiffs as alleged in plaint? OPP

3. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to injunction as prayed for? OPP

4. Whether the Plaintiff is not liable to be dispossessed from the suit land as alleged in plaint? OPP

5. Whether the Plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit in view of preliminary objection in para No. 3 & 4 of w/s? (OPD-3&4)

6. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction as alleged in para 5 of the w/s.

7. Relief.

7. Oral and documentary evidence was led.

8. Court was of the view that the Plaintiffs have failed to prove the case. The agr