The suit was barred by limitation as it was filed over 30 years after the allegedly fraudulent sale deed; objections under Section 33 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act were not timely established.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

2. The present second appeal has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 12th February, 2019, as well as order dated 16th May, 2020, by which, order dated 12th February, 2019 has been upheld by the Appellate Court.

3. The brief background of this case is that a suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction was filed by the legal heirs of late Mr. Aman Kumar in respect of property bearing no. No. 40/14/1(0-4), 14/2(4-12), 13(4-16), 17/2/(4-15), 18(4-16), 19(4-16), 40/15/1/1(3-12), 16/1/2(1-06) and 16/3/1(1-04), Ranhaula, Delhi. The case of the Plaintiffs/Appellants (hereinafter, "Plaintiffs") is that they acquired knowledge of the sale of this land from one Mr. Braham Singh who came to their house on 10th October, 2014 and informed them that Defendant No.1/Respondent No.1 (hereinafter, "Defendant No.1") had entered into an agreement with him for selling the plot which was allotted to Defendant No.1 by the DDA. The further case of the Plaintiffs is that a sale deed was executed on 18th August, 1984, which is stated to have been signed by one Mr. Eman Kumar in favour of Defendant No.1, but their father was Mr. Aman Kumar. Hence, the plea taken is that the sale deed itself is fake and fabricated.

4. The relief sought in the suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction is as under:

"a) A decree of permanent injunction be passed against the defendants, its agents, associates and any other relatives restraining thereby from allotting the alternative plot in favour of the defendant No.1 or processing it further or creating any third party interest in the suit property.

b) A decree of mandatory injunction be passed against the defendants, its agents, associates and any other relatives directing thereby from allotting the alternative plot in favour of the plaintiffs and cancelling the allotment of the alternate plot in favour of the defendant No.1 if it has been done already.

c) A decree of declaration be passed against the defendants, its agents, associates and any other relatives, declaring the Sale Deed bearing registration No.7598 in Addl Book No.1, Volume No.4437 on pages 111 to 112 on 18.08.1984 of the property in question null and void.

d) Any other order(S) which the Hon'ble Court deem proper and adequate in the facts and circumstances of the case be passed in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the defendants."

5. After the written statement was filed, in the replication an objection was taken that the sale is in violation of the provisions of Section 33 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. The judgment/decree came to be passed on 12th February, 2019. The following issues were framed by the Trial Court:

"1. Whether the suit is barred by period of limitation? OPD

6. In respect of the first issue, the Trial Court held that the suit is barred by limitation on various grounds. Firstly, the sale deed which was challenged was executed on 17th August, 1984 and it was not disputed that it was owned by the father of the Plaintiffs. Even if the cause of action is acquired in 1984, the suit is barred by 30 years. Further, it was also argued that the name of Mr. Aman Kumar @ Mr. Eman Kumar having signed as Mr. Eman Kumar was incorrectly shown in the s