A suit challenging a registered sale deed may be barred by the limitation period if the plaintiffs had prior knowledge of the transaction, as established through public records.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV J.THAKER, J.

1. The present Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the 6^th Adhoc District Judge, Mehsana dated 16.01.2018 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.45 of 2016 whereby the said appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree passed below Exhibit-19 under the provision of Order VII Rule 11 in Regular Civil Suit No.82 of 2015 by the Principal Civil Judge, Kadi was confirmed. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to plaintiff and defendant herein.

2. The plaintiff filed Civil Suit No.82 of 2015 and it is the case of the plaintiff in the plaint that they are the legal heirs of Isabbhai Usmanbhai Kureshi and the said Isabbhai Usmanbhai Kureshi expired on 27.11.1995 and the said Isabbhai Usmanbhai Kureshi was the father of plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 and grand father of defendant Nos.4 to 10 and it is the case of the plaintiff in the plaint that the suit property was owned by said Isabbhai Usmanbhai Kureshi and his brother Ahmed Usmanbhai Kureshi and a Revenue Entry was also effected by Revenue Entry No.2710.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that with respect to Survey No.121 at Mouje:Nandasan, Taluka Kadi, Jilla Mehsana, when the plaintiff got the certified copy of the village form No.7-11, in October-2015. It is at that time that the plaintiff came to know, that the defendant No.1 by a fraudulent signature, executed a registered sale deed No.495 on 06.05.1981 and it is the case of the plaintiff that the said signature is the sale deed does not bear the hand-writing of late Isabbhai Usmanbhai Kureshi and the witnesses to the said deed are also fraudulent and the plaintiff in the said suit has also stated that by way of Entry No.5386, the defendant No.1 has entered his name in the revenue record on 18.04.1988 by virtue of the said sale deed dated 06.05.1981.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff, that the father of the plaintiff has not executed any sale-deed in favour of defendant No.1 and by virtue of the said sale deed dated 06.05.1981, the defendant No.1 has executed sale deed on 30.11.2005 in favour of one Navinbhai Chaudhari and Rameshbhai Chaudhari and Revenue Entry to that effect has taken place on 20.04.2006 by Revenue Entry No.7900, and thereafter, the said Navinbhai Chaudhari and Rameshbhai Chaudhari executed sale deed in favour of Dilipbhai Mangaldas on 05.01.2007 and on 08.07.2008 by registered sale deed, the said Dilipbhai Mangaldas has sold the suit property to defendant Nos.2 and 3, and therefore, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for the reliefs that the sale deed that has been executed on 06.05.1981 is on fraudulent signature of the father of the plaintiff No.1, 2 and 3 i.e. Isabbhai Usmanbhai Kureshi and that the signatories of the witnesses are also fraudulent. The plaintiff has also stated that the said sale deed be declared cancelled as there is no sale consideration that has been paid and/or received by late Isabbhai Usmanbhai Kureshi.

5. The plaintiff has also sought for a relief that the sale deed dated 06.05.1981 and all other documents that have been executed by virtue of sale deed dated 06.05.1981 be declared cancelled and has sought injunction with respect to the claim of possession in the suit property. The defendant appeared in the said suit and the defendant filed application vide Exhibit-25 under the provision of Order VII Rule 11 and after considering the plaint and the document annexed with the plaint, the trial Court rejected the plaint and aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff filed