1. The order under challenge in the present Civil Revision Petition is rejection of the petitioner's application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, to reject the plaint in O.S.No.503 of 2016 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Alandur, filed under Order 7 Rule 1 r/w. Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

2. Heard Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.G.Ilamurugu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2.

3. The petitioner herein is the first defendant in the suit filed by the respondents 1 and 2 herein, seeking for the reliefs of declaration to declare the Sale Deed dated 16.11.1998 executed in favour of the first defendant as null and void and consequently, declare the plaintiffs/respondents herein as absolute owners of the suit property. The plaintiffs had also sought for the relief of mandatory injunction, to remove the alleged encroachment; to demolish the existing structure in the suit property; and to deliver vacant possession and also for consequential permanent injunction.

4. The petitioner herein had filed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 to reject the plaint predominantly on the grounds that the suit was under valued and barred by limitation. The trial Court had relied upon a decision of this Court made in CRP.(PD) No.955 of 2016 dated 20.04.2016 [K.Veeraraghavan V. T.Munusamy, C.Manohar, M.Pushpa] and held that though the plaintiffs had not properly valued the relief of declaration on the market value of the suit property, the Court had refused to reject the plaint but directed the plaintiffs to correct the valuation of the Court fees with respect to relief (c) in the plaint and ordered for payment of proper Court Fee.

5. Insofar as the ground of limitation is concerned, the trial Court was of the view that the issue is a mixed question of law and fact, which can be decided based on the evidences to be adduced on both sides and therefore, rejected such a plea. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit is apparently barred by limitation since the plaintiffs has sought for declaration, to declare the Sale Deed dated 16.11.1998 as null and void in the year 2016, after about 18 years. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are no averments with regard to the plaintiffs' date of knowledge of the Sale Deed in the plaint and therefore, the limitation to set aside the Sale Deed would deemed to be three years from the date of execution of the Sale Deed?

7. The averments in the plaint with regard to the plaintiffs' claim of being in possession of the property and the relief under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act has been made, by way of a clever and astute drafting and when the plaint is read in whole, the suit would be liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that the suit property has not been properly valued and the plaintiffs had failed to value the suit property on the basis of the market value as well as the value of the superstructure of the property. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon various decisions.

8. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, on the other hand submitted that, the application to reject the plaint is misconceived. According to him, the Sale Deed dated 16.11.1998 is sham and nominal and the plaintiffs were forcefully dispossessed from the property without their consent and hence, they sought for the relief, by invoking Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. In view of the same, the suit is deemed to have been presented well within the time. The learned counsel submitted that even assuming without admitting that the ground of limitation has been established by the petitioner herein, the other reliefs sought for in the plaint have not been questioned and hence, t