The question of limitation in the present suit cannot be decided as a preliminary issue as it is a mixed question of law and fact.

B.P. Katakey, J.

1. This appeal, by the Plaintiffs, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19.01.2002 and 01.02.2002, respectively, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Dhubri, in Title Appeal No. 22/2002 dismissing the appeal by upholding the judgment and decree dated 18.04.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), No. 1, Dhubri in Title Suit No. 56/1994, whereby and whereunder, the suit filed by the Plaintiffs was dismissed on the preliminary issue relating to the limitation.

2. The Plaintiffs instituted Title Suit No.56/1994 in the Court of the learned Munsiff, No. 1, Dhubri against the present Respondents as Defendants praying for declaration that the gift deed No. 1938 dated 15.02.1974 alleged to have been executed in favour of Defendant No.3 by Gouri Shah Gour, the predecessor in interest of the Plaintiffs, is illegal, forged and manufactured; that Gouri Shah Gour never gifted the suit land; that the Defendant No.3, therefore, could not derive any right, title and interest over the suit land by virtue of such gift deed; that the Plaintiffs are not bound by such deed of gift and also for declaration that the Defendant No. 1 cannot derive any right, title and interest over the suit land by virtue of the deed of sale No. 465 dated 28.02.1987 executed in her favour by Defendant No.3; that the Plaintiffs are not bound by such sale deed and also for a decree for eviction of the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 from the suit land after demolishing the structures standing thereon and for perpetual injunction, contending inter alia that in May, 1986 the suit land and premises was given on rent to the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and as they failed to pay the house rents since April, 1989 and in June, 1989 they arranged material for construction of the house on the suit land, the Plaintiffs brought Title Suit No. 190/1989 for perpetual injunction against those Defendants, wherein, the said Defendants filed written statement in the month of November, 1989 taking the plea that they purchased the suit land from the Defendant No.3 on 28.02.1987 by registered deed of sale No.465, which land the Defendant No.3 got from the Plaintiffs' father by virtue of a registered deed No. 1938 dated 15.02.1974, which necessitated the Plaintiffs to withdraw the suit. The Plaintiffs, thereafter, made enquiry and came to know that the deed No. 1938 dated 15.02.1974 alleged to have been executed by their father in favour of the Defendant No. 1 is forged and manufactured one, as Gouri Shah Gour never donated the suit land to Defendant No.3 and hence he never accrued any right, title and interest over the suit land by virtue of the said gift deed dated 15.02.1974, and as such, is inoperative and not binding on the Plaintiffs and hence the Defendant No. 1 cannot deprive any right, title and interest over the suit land by virtue of the sale deed No. 465 dated 28.02.1987, and the said sale deed is also invalid and not binding on the Plaintiffs. It has further contended in the plaint that the Defendant No.3 was minor on 15.02.1974 and no guardian was appointed for him at that time. The Plaintiffs' claim over the suit land is by virtue of the right of inheritance after the death of their father. The cause of action was stated to have arisen from the month of May, 1986 November, 1989, 15.02.1974, 18.02.1987, April, 1989 and on other subsequent dates at Gauripur within the jurisdiction of the Court.

3. The Defendants/Respondents herein contested the said suit by filing written statement, amongst other, taking the plea of limitation and further contending that the Plaintiffs were well aware about the transfer of the suit premises by executing the deeds from before and even if they came to know about such execution of the deeds from the written statement filed in the month of November, 1989 in Title Suit No. 190/1989, the suit having been instituted more than 3 (three) years from the date of their knowledge about the execution of such dee