The main legal point established in the judgment is that the determination of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, and issues related to limitation can only be adjudicated upon after trial and final adjudication.

JAYANT NATH, J.

IA No.11880/17 (u/O 7 R 11 CPC filed by D-15) and IA No.11879/17 (u/O 7 R 11 filed by D-2 to 7, 9 to 14 and 16 and 17)

1. IA No.11880/2017 is filed on behalf of defendant No.15 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint in view of the fact that it is barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963. IA No.11879/2017 is filed by defendants No.2 to 7, 9 to 14 and 16 and 17 seeking the same relief.

2. The plaintiff has filed a suit for possession, recovery of money and damages and has also prayed for a declaration that the various sale deeds executed in favour of defendants No.2 to 18 are illegal, unlawful, fraudulent and void ab initio. It is pleaded in the plaint that the land in question which is the suit property situated at village Humayunpur, Delhi belongs to the plaintiffs No.1 and 2. The parties entered into an Agreement/MOU on 27.5.2005. Under the said agreement plaintiff No.1 agreed to transfer his 1/4th share in the property in favour of defendant No.1. Various terms and conditions were agreed upon by the parties. It has been pleaded by the plaintiffs that there were specific covenants in the Agreement dated 27.5.2005 that if defendant No.1 fails to make necessary payment of balance due then the earnest money shall stand forfeited and the Agreement would stand automatically cancelled. It was also pleaded that defendant No.1 had right to sell and book for sale remaining flats other than three flats which were constructed pursuant to the MOU. The three flats had been undertaken to be transferred by defendant No.1 in favour of plaintiff No.3. Defendant No.1 had a right to enter into a collaboration agreement with builders to book residential flats and to construct a building over the land. As the defendant No.1 breached the agreement, the agreement stood terminated and came to an end. It is pleaded that the earnest money paid for the agreement stood forfeited and defendant No.1 is liable to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the land to plaintiffs No.1 and 2. It is pleaded that in the meantime defendant No.1 constructed few flats and sold some of the flats to defendants No.2 to 18. Hence, the present suit has been filed seeking a decree of possession of half share measuring 575 sq.yds. in the land situated at Khasra No. 485/30, situated at village Humayunpur, Delhi. A decree is also sought for a sum of Rs.89,20,000/- in favour of plaintiff No.3 and against the defendants. Declaration is also sought that the various sale deeds registered in favour of defendants No.2 to 18 be declared illegal, unlawful, fraudulent and void ab initio.

3. Plaint as originally filed did not implead defendants No.2 to 18. It is the case of the plaintiff that he received knowledge of the sale of flats by defendant No.1 to the said defendants only after written statement was filed sometimes in October 2008 and when the documents were filed in September 2009. Plaintiff accordingly moved an application in 2010 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint. Subsequently, as there was confusion on the identity of the proposed parties on 21.9.2012 the plaintiff withdrew the said amendment application with liberty to file a fresh application. The fresh application was filed in 2013. By order dated 19.2.2014 the amendment application was allowed and defendants No.2 to 18 have been impleaded as defendants to the suit.

4. Now by the present applications it is pleaded that the plaintiffs had knowledge about their title to the flat in question at least in 2009. Further the impleadment of the said defendant would relate back to the date they were served with summons in 2014 in view of Order 1 Rule 10(5) CPC. It is hence pleaded that the plaint and the relief sought against defendants No.2 to 18 are barred by limitation being hit by Article 58 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act and the present suit should be dismissed, as it is barred by law.

5. Learned counsel for the pla