1. The appellant is the 5th defendant in a suit for declaration to declare various sale deeds executed commencing from the year 1991 to 2010 as null and void; for a direction to the District Revenue Officer to cancel the patta issued to the defendants 1 to 19 and to issue fresh patta to the plaintiff and his family members; for a mandatory injunction directing certain defendants to remove illegal construction put up by them; for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 19 from in any manner interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 19 from encumbering the suit property.

2. The first respondent herein is the plaintiff in the above suit. The appellant herein as the 5th defendant filed I.A.No.126/2014 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation as the challenge against the sale was made beyond the period of limitation.

3. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff by filing a detailed counter affidavit by contending that the suit is not barred by limitation as the plaintiff in the mean time, had initiated proceedings before the Revenue authorities which ended only in the year 2011.

4. The trial Court by the contention of the appellant herein, allowed the application and thereby rejected the suit by holding that the plaintiff has approached the Court beyond the period of limitation. Challenging the said order, the plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S.No.26 of 2014. The Appellate Court, allowed the appeal and restored the suit on the file of the trial Court. Challenging the reversing judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court, the 5th defendant filed the present Appeal.

5. This Court admitted the Second Appeal by raising the following substantial questions of law.

a) Whether in law, the lower Appellate Court was right in holding that the suit was in time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act when revenue proceedings would not amount to bonafide prosecution in a Civil Court?

b) Whether in law the lower Appellate Court was right in overlooking that the suit seeking for a declaration that documents of the year 1996 were null and void was barred by limitation under Act 58 of the Limitation Act?

c) Whether in law the lower Appellate Court was right in failing to note that the suit was an abuse of process of court liable to be rejected vide 1998 (1) CTC 66, Ranipet Municipality Vs. M.Shamsheerkhan?

Thereafter, the matter is listed before this Court for final hearing.

6. Mrs. Hema Sampath, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted as follows:

6.a) On the face of the plaint averments itself it is evident that the plaintiff had knowledge of the sale even in the year 2007 itself and however, he has chosen to file the suit in the year 2012 after the period of limitation. The proceedings initiated before the Revenue authorities itself was after nine years of the sale. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly rejected the suit.

6.b) In support of her contention, the learned senior counsel relied on the following decisions:

i) 2007(5) MLJ 187 (Hardesh Ores Pvt. Ltd. vs. Hede and Co.)

ii) AIR 2006 Delhi 182 (Kamal Gupta v. Uma Gupta and Ors)

iii) 2013(4) CTC 175 (M.Banupriya v. M.Lakshmi).

7. Per contra, Mr. C.V.Subramaniam, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/plaintiff submitted as follows:

7.a) The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property having derived title by way of succession from his grandmother who got the title to the property by way of sale dated 09.08.1945. The defendants 1 to 3 played fraud and created forged documents also by fabricating the revenue records. Thus, they sold the suit property as though they were owners, to other purchasers who were shown as the other defendants. When a plea of fraud and forgery is raised, the question of application of limitation does not arise. Even otherwise, the plaintiff was en