JUDGMENT :

Nisha M. Thakore, J.

1. This is an Appeal filed by the original plaintiffs under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure,1908, (hereinafter referred to as “Code”) challenging the judgment and order dated 14.09.2011 below Exhibit 48 in Special Civil Suit No.676 of 2010 passed by the learned 5th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara. By the said judgment and order, learned Trial Judge has allowed the application filed by the original defendants under Order VII, Rule 11 (d) of Code, thereby dismissing the Suit against the defendant No.1 on the ground that the suit is barred by the law of limitation.

2. Before entering into merits of the case, it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant facts of the case, which are as under:

2.1 The Suit land includes an agricultural land bearing old Revenue Survey Nos.102 and 110, Block No.76 admeasuring 5356 Sq. Mtrs. and another having old Revenue Survey Nos.129 and 116/3 and 114, Block No.85 admeasuring 9049 Sq. Mtrs. at village: Aalamgir, Dist. Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as the “Suit land”).

2.2 The original plaintiffs claimed to be the heirs of Maganbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel i.e. father of the appellant Nos.1 to 3 and grand-father of appellant No.4, who passed away on 07.06.1979 and upon his death, the aforesaid suit lands along with other properties came to be devolved in the name of the appellants. Thus, the appellants claimed to be joint owners of the suit land.

2.3 It is further contended that on 01.12.1982, inter-se distribution of the inherited lands took place amongst the heirs of the deceased Maganbhai Patel and as per the said understanding, the Block No.76 came to the share of the appellant No.2 – Naranbhai Maganbhai Patel and Block No.85 came to the share of appellant No.1 Jayantilal Maganbhai Patel. Inspite of such mutual understanding between the appellants, the factually the possession of the land Block No.76 had continued with the appellant No.2 and possession of the land bearing Block No.85 had continued with the appellant No.1 and considering the fact that both were real brothers, no assertion was made by the family members in terms of distribution agreed between them.

2.4 It is further contended that the defendant No.6 had shown willingness to purchase part of land bearing Block No.85 which had gone to the share of the appellant No.1. However, under the pretext of getting correction as per the distribution agreed upon, the defendant No.6 obtained signature of the appellant Nos.1 and 2 and created fraudulent sale deed of entire block No.85 and also of block No.76. It is further contended that on 04.10.1999 the aforesaid sale deeds were fraudulently got executed in favour of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 and was registered before the office of the Sub-Registrar on 28.10.1999. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they have continued to remain in actual possession of the aforesaid lands. It is further pleaded by the plaintiffs that the original defendant Nos.2 and 3 sold their part of land bearing Block No.76 by executing registered sale deed dated 25.07.2012 in favour of the defendant No.4, who in turn sold the said land to the original defendant No.5 by registered sale deed dated 30.03.2010.

2.5 It is further contended that on 07.08.2010, the original defendant No.1 had approached the Civil Court by filing Regular Civil Suit No.833 of 2010 seeking declaration and permanent injunction against the plaintiffs in respect of land bearing Block No.85, which is pending adjudication before the concerned Civil Court at Vadodara. It is the case of the plaintiffs that in response to such summons issued in the aforesaid Suit, when the plaintiffs appeared before the concerned Civil Court, they became aware about the fraud played by the defendants in collusion with each other in respect of the suit land. Initially, the plaintiffs approached the concerned Police Station raisi