IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, and the determination that the suit was barred by limitation.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present Second Appeal is filed by the appellants – original plaintiffs under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the C.P.C.”) by challenging the judgment and decree dated 18.08.2015 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.203 of 2015 by the learned Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Deesa as well as the judgment and order dated 10.02.2023 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.21 of 2015 by the learned 6th Addl. District Judge, Deesa.

2. Heard Mr. S.P. Majmudar, the learned counsel with Mr. P.S. Datta, the learned counsel for the appellants.

3. The suggested substantial questions of law are as under:

A. Whether both the Hon'ble below have committed Courts substantial error of law in rejecting the plaint of the appellants in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908?

B. Whether the learned Trial Court as well as the learned First Appellate Court have gravely and materially erred in Failing to Appreciate that limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and is to be decided only after evidence is adduced as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

C. Whether the learned Trial Court has gravely and materially erred in applying the principle that registration is deemed knowledge, relying upon the decision of this Hon'ble Court, in the case of Becharbhai Zaverbhai Patel Vs. Jashbhai Shivabhai Patel, reported in 2013 (1) GLR 398 while failing to consider Hon'ble the decision Court of this in Bahadurbhai Laljibhai Malhotra Versus Ambalal Joitaram Heirs of Joitaram Ranchhoddas reported in 2015 (3) GLR 2760 wherein it is specifically held that such deemed knowledge under section 3 of the Transfer Property Act is imputed to the person acquiring such property or any share or interest in such property and that such provision therefore, cannot be applied in case of a subsequent sale of immovable property to impute deemed knowledge of such transaction on the erstwhile purchaser/owner merely on the strength of section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act?

D. Whether the learned Trial Court as well as the learned First Appellate Court have gravely and materially erred in failing to appreciate that the plaintiff is claiming an antecedent title in the Suit properties and therefore, the principle of deemed notice under section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 would not apply in the present case?

E. Whether the learned Trial Court as well as the learned First Appellant Court have gravely and materially erred in failing to appreciate that the plaintiff had clearly stated in the plaint that they obtained knowledge about the fact that the document dated 26.05.1980 was an illegal sale deed and not a deed of mortgage on obtaining a certified copy thereof on 01.08.2015?

F. Whether the learned Trial Court as well as the learned First Appellant Court have gravely and materially erred in failing to appreciate that an application for rejection of plaint is to be heard on demurrer and hence assertions in the plaint must be assumed to be true for the purposes of determining whether plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?

G. Whether the learned Trial Court as well as the learned First Appellant Court have gravely and materially erred in failing to appreciate that the case of the plaintiff was that there was misrepresentation character of a fraudulent as regards the the document which would render it void ab initio as opposed to voidable?

H. Whether the learned Trial Court as well as the learned First Appellant Court have gravely and materially erred in failing to appreciate that in any event, the document dated. 26.05.1980 was executed with Ratansing Devji Thakor when he was a minor and was void ab initio as per section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 as held in the matter of Mathai Mathai V. Joseph Mary & Ors. reported in (2015) 5 SCC 622 ?

I. Whether the learned Trial Court as well as the learned First Appellant Court have gravely