IMPORTANT POINT
The suit was filed after a delay of 28 years and no genuine cause of action was found from the plaint, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

ORDER :

1. The present Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 20.08.2015 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Chikhli in Regular Civil Suit No. 74 of 2014 and the same came to be confirmed vide order dated 29.07.2019 passed by learned 2nd (Ad-hoc) Additional District Judge, Navsari in Regular Civil Appeal No. 47 of 2015.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

2.1 The property in question is land bearing Survev No. 1087 of Village Aachhavani, Taluka Khergam, District Navsari is hereinafter referred as “suit property.” The total land of the Block No. 1087 is H 06-92-25 Sq. Mtr. out of the H-01-19-04 was agreed to sell by the owner late Natwarsinh Gulabsinh Solanki to the plaintiff appellant on 16-01-1985 and sale consideration was decided in tune of Rs. 12,701/- the agreement to sale was done on 16-01-1985 in presence of the witnesses and owner Natwarsinh Gulabsinh Solanki, sale consideration was paid entirely on the same day and possession of the suit property was handed over to the appellant herein. In the agreement to sale no time was fixed for the execution of the sale deed and possession was given to the appellant herein. The defendants are also aware about the possession and agreement to sale. After the death of Natwarsinh Gulabsinh, the appellant contacted the defendant no. 2 namely Rajendrasinh Natubhai Solanki on 26-11-2014 personally and made a request to execute the sale deed, on that time, the defendant no. 2 told the appellant that after consulting the other co-owners, he would reply within a five days. Thereafter the defendants not gave any specific answer or reply with regard to the sale deed and therefore, on 01-12-2014, the appellant herein issued legal notice through his advocate by stating that the agreement to sale was executed on 16-01-1985, entire sale consideration was paid, the present appellant is in possession of the land, in agreement to sale, there was no time was fixed for the execution of the sale deed and therefore made a request to execute a sale deed.

2.2 The notice of the appellant was received to the defendants and thereafter the defendants gave the answer to the notice through their advocate on 12-12-2014 by denying the notice and stating that the entire story of the agreement to sale was created one and after the death of the Natwarsinh, the name of the heirs are mentioned and the agreement to sale is false and created one, thereby refusing to execute a sale deed. Thereafter the appellant-plaintiff filed Civil Suit before the Ld. Principal Civil Judge at Chikhli on 29-12-2014 with a prayer to execute a sale deed and also prayer to declare the appellant as owner and also prayer that the defendant may not create hindrance or obstruct in the possession of the plaintiff and not to transfer in any manner the suit property, the suit of the appellant is registered as Regular Civil Suit No. 74 of 2014. In the above suit the defendants-respondents filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) and (d) of Civil Procedure Code for rejection of the plaint mainly on the ground that the suit is barred by the law of the limitation of a period of 28 years and in revenue record from 1981 to 2004, the name of the defendants are continued.

2.3 The present appellant filed the reply to the application of the respondents by Exhibit 24, contending that the suit of the plaintiff is well within the time, limitation is mixed question of law and therefore, after evidence, it will be decided, and the possession of the plaintiff appellant is from the date of the agreement to sale and the defendant suppressed the real fact. The suit of the appellant was rejected by the Ld. Trial Court mainly on the ground that Article-54 of the Limitation Act prescribe a time for a period of 3 years and the suit is filed after a period of 28 years and therefore, on the ground of delay the suit of the plaintiff is rejected.

2.4 Being aggrie