1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed to strike down the plaint in O.S.No.191 of 2014 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Udumalpet.

2. The petitioners are defendants, the respondent is plaintiff. The respondent who is the brother of first petitioner and brother-in-law of second petitioner filed suit in O.S.No.191 of 2014 for partition, separate possession and to declare the sale deed dated 14.11.2003 executed by second petitioner in favour of first petitioner as null and void.

3. The respondent in the suit has stated that he is the younger brother of first petitioner and both of them have purchased the suit property from their father Sakthivel by the deed of sale dated 29.06.1993. From that date onwards, they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. After purchase, they demolished the old building and put up new construction and let out the same to various third parties for rent. The respondent is residing in a room in the second floor alongwith his family. He was collecting the rent from the tenants and sharing the same with the first petitioner. On 30.06.2013, the petitioners informed the respondent that they are the absolute owners of the suit properties and the respondent has no right and created problem with the respondent. The respondent lodged a complaint with Inspector of Police, Udumalpet Police Station. The respondent came to know about the fraudulent general Power of Attorney obtained by the second petitioner from the respondent and sale deed executed by the second petitioner in favour of the first petitioner. He also gave complaint to the Land Grabbing Cell, Tirupur. The respondent did not execute any general Power of Attorney in favour of the second petitioner. Having come to know about the fraudulent Power of Attorney, cancelled the same by deed of cancellation on 22.09.2014. The respondent sent a notice on 02.12.2009 through his counsel to the petitioners. The respondent filed suit for partition and declaration as petitioners have played fraud on the respondent.

4. The petitioners have come out with the present Civil Revision Petition for striking off the plaint on the ground of limitation and suppression of materials facts by the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondent agreed to sell his - share in the suit property and executed an agreement of sale dated 10.09.2001 and handed over the possession to the first petitioner. He received Rs.2,50,000/- and balance sale consideration payable is Rs.50,000/-. The respondent executed general Power of Attorney dated 31.10.2003 and the same was registered. By the said general Power of Attorney, the second petitioner was appointed as Power of Attorney of the respondent and she executed and registered the sale deed dated 14.11.2003 in favour of the first petitioner. The period of limitation has to be computed from 10.01.2001 or 31.10.2003 or 14.11.2003, as per Article 58 of the Limitation Act. The respondent has filed suit after thirteen (13) years of handing over possession, as per agreement of sale dated 10.09.2001 and ten (10) years after execution of the sale deed dated 14.11.2003 which is barred by limitation and is liable to be struck off at the threshold itself. The respondent is a party to the Power of Attorney and sale deed. Both the parties can seek to set aside the sale, within three years, even if all the averments made are true. The suit filed by the respondent is fraudulent, vexatious and is against public policy.

5. When a person signs a document, he is deemed to have read and understood the contents of the document. The sale agreement, Power of Attorney and sale deed are in Tamil. Power of Attorney and sale deed are executed and registered before Sub Registrar, as per the provisions of the Registration Act. It is imaginary that documents are executed for loan transaction. As per Order VII Rule 6 CPC, the plaintiff must state the ground for exemption for limitation. The grounds must be lawful