Legal actions must be initiated within prescribed time limits, and stale claims that lack timely assertion cannot proceed; thus, suits filed beyond the limitation period are barred by law.

JUDGMENT :

(Hemant M. Prachchhak, J.)

1. The order passed below Exhibit 15 in Special Civil Suit No. 16 of 2022 dated 30.06.2023 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Surendranagar is challenged under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘the Code’ hereinafter).

Factual Matrix:

2. Brief facts leading to the present appeal are as follow:

2.1 The Special Civil Suit No.16 of 2022 filed by the legal heirs of deceased Alibhai Kalubhai with the following prayers.

2.2 That on 14.05.1978, one so-called document in the form of ‘raja chiththi’ was executed by and between the deceased Alibhai Kalubhai and the deceased Shri Valibhai Vithalbhai. Thereafter, on the basis of the said so-called unregistered document, as per the say of the plaintiffs, they were in possession of the suit land and from that date, they are cultivating the said land. It is an admitted fact that from 1978 till the institution of the suit, the plaintiffs had never called upon defendant no.1 to execute the sale deed in their favour nor had they issued any legal notice for initiation of any proceedings against deceased defendant no.1 or his legal heirs, however, there is nothing on record to so that they have ever called upon defendant no.1 or his legal heirs to act upon the said so-called agreement to sell. It is also an admitted fact that on 06.06.1980, deceased defendant no.1 has executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant no.2. That sale deed was registered in the office of the Registrar, Vadhvan (Surendranagar) being registration no.1719/1980. From that day, defendant no.2 was the owner of the said parcel of land. Thereafter, the said land was further transferred to defendants no.3 to 6 by way of executing sale deed bearing registration no.4054/2021 on 22.07.2021 by the defendant no.2. It is the case of the plaintiffs that even upon subsequent transaction also, deceased Alibhai Kalubhai was not aware that the said suit land was sold by defendant no.2 to defendants no.3 to 6. That when the defendants no.3 to 6 came to the suit land and informed the plaintiffs that they have purchased the property from defendant no.2 and, thereafter, the plaintiffs inquired from the office of the Panchayat for getting revenue abstract i.e. 7-12 and Form No.6 on 19.12.2021. That the present respondents have lodged the complaint under the provisions of the Land Grabbing Act against the appellants and they received notice from the concerned authority for recording their statement on 29.10.2022. That the appellants came to know that the suit land was owned by defendant no.2, which was subsequently transferred in favour of defendants no.3 to 6 and, therefore, on the basis of the said action, notice issued for recording of the statements. That the appellants approached this Court by way of Special Civil Application No.22635 of 2022 wherein this Court vide order dated 11.11.2022 issued notice and stayed the proceedings. Thereafter, the plaintiffs have obtained the copy of the registered sale deed and they met the legal heirs of defendant no.1 and defendant no.1 had filed affidavit with regard to the ownership of the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs. In view of the facts that defendant no.1 had executed a sale deed in favour of defendant no.2 and, thereafter, subsequently, defendant no.2 had had executed a sale deed in favour defendants no.3 to 6, the plaintiffs have filed the suit before the trial Court and the defendants – respondents herein have preferred an application below Exhibit 15 in the suit for quashing and setting aside the suit filed by the plaintiffs, which came to be allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 30.06.2023 and rejected the suit and hence, against the said order, the appellants have preferred the pre