MUKTA GUPTA, J.

1. Saranpal Kaur Anand, an unmarried daughter of late Sardar Harnam Singh Anand and late Smt.Harbans Kaur filed a suit being CS (OS) 873/2012 inter-alia seeking a decree of declaration that suit property bearing No.4-C/7, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi is a joint undivided family property of the plaintiff and defendants No.3 to 9 being the successors of late Sardar Harnam Singh and late Smt.Harbans Kaur; a decree of declaration declaring the purported sale deed dated August 23, 1969 executed by Smt.Harbans Kaur through her alleged attorney in favour of Ms.Tej Kaur as fictitious, sham, incompetent, bad, illegal, null and void and a decree of permanent injunction besides damages and mesne profits. The plaintiff also prayed for additional relief for further claims under Order II Rule 2 CPC.

2. After filing of the suit in March 2012 plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint being IA No.17994/2012 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC seeking to incorporate the prayer for the relief of possession on the ground that the same was inadvertently omitted even though foundational pleadings had been set-forth and the requisite Court fee for the relief of possession had been paid. After hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge vide the order dated February 07, 2014 settled the preliminary issue of limitation as under:

“Whether the suit as framed is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC on the ground of limitation? (OPD)”

3. After the preliminary issue was settled the plaintiff filed another application for amendment of the plaint being IA No.7950/2014 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to elaborate and detail the cause of action. Though no notice in this IA No.7950/2014 was issued to defendants No.1 and 2, however arguments were heard in both IAs i.e. IA No.17994/2012 and IA No.7950/2014 besides the preliminary issue settled in CS (OS) No.873/2012 and decided vide the impugned order dated April 06, 2015. The operative portion of the impugned order reads as under:

“39. The suit is apparently time barred. Hence, the plaint is rejected, the issue framed in the matter is accordingly decided against the plaintiff and in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2, the amendment applications filed by the plaintiff are mala-fide and are not maintainable as the same itself is time barred on the face of pleadings and documents placed on record. Both applications are accordingly dismissed.”

4. Hence the present appeal by the plaintiff before this Court.

5. The contention of learned counsel for the plaintiff is two-fold; firstly that the issue of limitation as settled could not be decided as a preliminary issue because the same was a mixed question of fact and law. At this stage the learned Single Judge could have decided the issue of limitation only by way of demurrer and not relied upon documents handed over by the learned counsel for the defendant No.1 and 2 with written submissions. Secondly, once amendment applications had been filed, the same were required to be decided before deciding the issue of limitation by way of demurrer.

6. Before proceeding to the facts it would be necessary to note the relationship between the parties and the chart showing their relationship is as under:

7. In the plaint Saranpal Kaur Anand impleaded Praduman Singh Chandhok her maternal uncle as defendant No.1, his son Pervinder Singh Chandhok as defendant No.2, her brothers Gurdev Singh Anand, Iqbal Singh Anand, Surjit Singh Anand as defendant No.3, defendant No.4 and defendant No.5 respectively. Smt.Damanpal Kaur Anand, Shri Jaspreet Singh Anand and Shri Gursimar Singh Anand legal heirs of her deceased brother Kultaran Singh Anand as defendant No.6, defendant No.7 and defendant No.8 respectively and Smt.Sarvinder Kaur Chandhok her sister as defendant No.9. Before we deal with the rival contentions, it would be appropriate to note down the averments in the plaint necessary for the decision of the present a