M.R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat dated 29.04.2016 passed below Exh. 37 in Special Civil Suit No. 605 of 2013, by which, the application submitted by the original defendants, in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejecting the plaint, the original plaintiffs have preferred the present First Appeal.

2. That the appellants herein - original plaintiffs had instituted Special Civil Suit No. 605 of 2013 against the respondents - original defendants in the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Surat for declaration and permanent injunction and in the alternative for damages/compensation. The suit which is filed in the month of October 2015, the original plaintiffs have prayed to declare the registered sale deed dated 25.03.2003 (with respect to land bearing block No. 146, Town Planning Scheme No. 58 and Final Plot No. 46 situated at village Bamroli); the sale deed dated 27.06.2002 (with respect to land bearing block No. 141, Town Planning Scheme No. 58 and Final Plot No. 42 situated at village Bamroli) and the registered sale deed dated 10.05.2004 (with respect to land bearing block No. 114, Town Planning Scheme No. 58 and Final Plot No. 42 situated at village Bamroli) as null and void and without consideration and on the forged power of attorney. The plaintiffs have also prayed that confirmation deed obtained by the defendant No. 1 with respect to the aforesaid properties be also declared void ab-initio and illegal as the same is obtained by misrepresentation and fraud. In the said suit, the plaintiffs have also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from transferring and/or alienating the suit properties/lands. The original plaintiffs have also prayed for decree of possession. In the alternative, the original plaintiffs have prayed to Rs. 213,67,28,000/- towards compensation/damages/market price. It was the case on behalf of the original plaintiffs that the grandfather of the original defendants has done cheating and breach of trust with the plaintiff No. 1 and got sale deed executed in his favour without any consideration and by taking false signature and by concocting forged power of attorney.

2.1. It was the case on behalf of the plaintiffs that with respect to the property description bearing (a) the sale deed was executed by the original plaintiff No. 1 in favour of the grandfather of the defendants in the year 2002 bearing No. 4475 dated 27.06.2002 and thereafter No. 2549 dated 25.03.2003 before the Sub Registrar. It was the case on behalf of the original plaintiffs that the said sale deed was executed by and through the Power of Attorney Naginbhai Chhimkabhai, however plaintiff No. 1 had not given such power of attorney and sale deed does not bear the signature of the plaintiff No. 1. It was the case on behalf of the plaintiffs that thereafter the plaintiffs issued the legal notice dated 05.09.2013 where the defendants gave vague and evasive reply.

2.2. It was the case on behalf of the original plaintiffs that with respect to property description bearing (b) the sale deed is executed bearing No. 2550 of 2003, however, the signature of the plaintiff No. 1 is forged and fabricated and the confirmation deed is void ab-initio and as without consideration.

2.3. It was the case on behalf of the original plaintiffs that in respect of property bearing description (c), the signature of plaintiff No. 1 is forged and fabricated and the confirmation deed is void-ab-initio and as it is without consideration. Therefore, plaintiffs prayed for the aforesaid reliefs.

2.4. Having served with the notice of suit, the original defendant No. 1 appeared before the learned trial Court. He submitted that the application at Exh. 37 for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure stating that the suit is barred by limitation. The said appli