The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit for declaration and cancellation of documents is subject to the limitation period prescribed under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, and failure to file the suit within the prescribed period can result in the dismissal of the suit as barred by limitation.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. On the first call, no one appeared for the plaintiffs and therefore the matter was passed over. On the second call, no one appears for the plaintiffs and counsels appearing for the defendant nos.1, 2 and 5 very vehemently oppose the adjournment as it is stated that plaintiffs are deliberately not appearing so as to avoid a decision in the suit which is barred by limitation and therefore issues do not have to be framed, and for which purpose the suit is listed today.

2. The subject suit is a suit for declaration, cancellation and permanent injunction by which the plaintiffs seek declaration and cancellation of sale deeds of different dates as also cancellation of a general power of attorney and a Will. The reliefs sought with respect to the documents can be understood from the prayer clause of the plaint and which prayer clause reads as under:-

“a. Pass the decree of declaration thereby declaring the following sale deed as null and void qua the share of Late Sh. Dharam Singh, plaintiff’s father:

i. Sale deed bearing Registration no.6188 Addl. Book No.I, Vol. No.1160 pages 33-40 dated 2.5.1995.

ii. Sale deed bearing Registration no.7360 Addl. Book No.I, Vol. No.841 pages 1-8 dated 26.8.1996.

iii. Sale deed bearing Registration no.7362 Addl. Book No.I, Vol. No.841 pages 18-23 dated 26.5.1996.

iv. Sale deed bearing Registration no.7358 Addl. Book No.I, Vol. No.840 pages 184-191 dated 26.8.1996.

v. Sale deed bearing Registration no.6186 Addl. Book No.I, Vol. No.1160 pages 18-25 dated 5.6.1997.

vi. Sale deed bearing Registration no.4128 Addl. Book No.I, Vol. No.397 pages 42-48 dated 13.12.2000.

b. Pass the decree of declaration thereby declaring General Power of Attorney, registered vide registration no.1089, Book no.IV, volume no.2090 on pages no.158-162 dated 24.2.94, as null and void. It is further prayed that the decree of cancellation in respect of the above said GPA may kindly be passed.

c. Pass a decree of declaration thereby declaring the will in favour of the defendant number 1, which was registered as registration no.951 Addl. Book no.III, volume no.766 on pages 100 and 101 dated 24.2.1994, as null and void. It is further prayed that the decree of cancellation in respect of the above said will may kindly be passed.

d. Issue direction to the concern Sub-Registrar directing him to cancel the registration of the above said documents/instruments registered with its office.

e. Pass a decree of the permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, restraining thereby the defendants, their associates, employees agents and nominees etc from dispossess in the plaintiff from the land admeasuring about 3 bighas, falling in khasra no.861(1-10), 901(0-10) and 807(1-0), situated within the revenue estate of village Rajokari, New Delhi.”

3. The suit land is described in para 1 of the plaint which reads as under:-

“1. That the father of the plaintiffs namely Sh. Dharam Singh was bhumidhar of 1/36th share of the land bearing khasra no.806 (4-16), 807 (4-16), 808 (3-6), 809 (6-16), 854 (4-16), 857/2 (1-3), 858 (4-16), 859 (4-16), 860 (4-16), 861 (4-16), 864/2 (2-12), 865 (4-16), 866/1 (0-16), 871/2 (3-16), 872/1 (2-4), 897/1 (2-8), 898 (4-16), 900 (4-16), 901 (7-4), 902(2-18), 903 (4-16), 904-907 (4-16), 908 (6-10), 909-910 (4-16), 978 (4-9), 993 (4-9), 1047 (1-0), 1053/1(0-9) and 1053/2(0-13) situated within the revenue estate of village Rajokari. He was in actual cultivatory possession of his total area of about 3 bighas and 13 biswas, out of the above said land, which was well demarcated, pursuant to family settlement amongst his father and forefather.”

4. The cause of action as stated in the plaint is that the defendant no.5 Sh. Ramesh Chander Aggarwal approached the father of the plaintiffs in the year 1994 and offered to purchase his 1/36th share in the land bearin