DEEPA SHARMA, J.

1. Vide the present appeal, the appellant has assailed the order dated 17.05.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby her suit bearing No. CS(OS) 217/2017 seeking declaration, partition, possession and injunction qua House No. 206, Block-10, Golf Links, New Delhi-110003, was dismissed at the threshold without issuing notice to the respondents, on the ground that the same was barred by limitation.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the property bearing House No.206, Block No.10 (measuring 375 sq. yds.), Golf Links, Cornwall Road, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the subject property”) was purchased by Dr. S.N. Bhandari in 1952 who out of his own earnings raised a 2½ storeyed bungalow on the said plot in the year 1954. Dr. S.N. Bhandari, entered into a settlement deed dated 08.03.1956 with one Dr.Raj Kumari Grover qua the subject property. As per the terms of this deed of settlement, they became owners of equal shares in the subject property. It was also resolved between them that the subject property shall go to her sons and in their absence to her daughters etc., on the re-marriage or death of Dr. Raj Kumari Grover. Subsequent to this deed of settlement, both Dr. S.N. Bhandari and Dr. Raj Kumari Grover became a couple by virtue of their marriage, solemnized on 17.03.1956. The said deed of settlement was confirmed by the Land & Development Officer, vide his letter No.LIV/9/10/206 dated 27.12.1965. Thereafter, on 15.02.1972, Dr. S.N. Bhandari relinquished his undivided share in the subject property in favour of his wife, namely, Dr. Ms.Raj Kumari Bhandari and the latter became full owner by virtue of the former’s letter No.LIV/9/10/206 dated 06.05.1972. Dr. Ms. Raj Kumari Bhandari, mother of the parties, thereafter executed a Will dated 26.03.1979 bequeathing all her immovable and movable properties to her two sons and their families. During her lifetime, a family settlement deed dated 11.11.1980 was drawn. It was witnessed by her two daughters, which included the appellant. The mother of the parties expired on 21.09.2007. Both the sisters (appellant and respondent No.3) raised disputes with regard to the said Will dated 26.03.1979. The matter was referred to arbitration. In those proceeding, the parties entered into a settlement dated 10.10.2007 before the Arbitrator. An award dated 29.10.2007, in terms of the settlement, was passed. This award was challenged by the appellant and her sister, namely, Ms. Neena Thakur, by way of CS(OS) No.2251/2013, which is now pending adjudication before the District Courts, Delhi.

3. As per the appellant, she had discovered one hand written Will dated 25.05.2006 of her deceased mother. Thereafter, the executors of the said Will dated 25.05.2006 filed a probate Petition No.29/2016 (Old No.324/2014), their appointment as executors of the subject property.

4. While the evidence was recorded in the probate proceedings, a witness from the Land & Development Office was summoned and he produced certain documents, including the said settlement deed dated 11.11.1980.

5. The impugned order has been challenged by the appellant on the grounds that the averments made in the suit have not been properly appreciated and examined; that the averments in the plaint are required to be read as a whole, and not in isolation and out of context. It is argued that learned Single Judge has erred in reading the pleadings in isolation and not in totality. Reliance is placed on Ponnala Lakshmaiah vs. Kommuri Pratap Reddy & Ors. (2012) 7 SCC 788 and on para 33 of Udhav Singh vs. Madhav Rao Scindia (1977) 1 SCC 511 which reads as under:-

“33. We are afraid, this ingenious method of construction after compartmentalization, dissection, segregation and inversion of the language of the paragraph, suggested by the counsel, runs counter to the cardinal cannon of interpretation, according to which, a pleading has to be read as a whole to ascertain its true import. It is not permissible to ca