A suit challenging a sale deed as forged can be filed within three years of acquiring knowledge of the alleged forgery; thus, such a suit is not barred by limitation.

ORDER :

S. SOUNTHAR, J.

The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the trial Court, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/defendant seeking rejection of the plaint.

2. The respondents herein filed a suit seeking declaration that they are the absolute owners of the suit property and for consequential injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering with the possession of the suit property. They also sought for cancellation of the sale deed executed in favour of the defendants dated 19.05.1975 by their father Ramasamy.

3. It is the case of the respondents that 5 acres 51 cents of land in S.F.No.383/2 in Poomalur Village was originally purchased by one Karuppakkal under sale deed dated 02.03.1942. The said Karuppakkal executed a sale deed in favour of Ayiakkal and Ramasamy Gounder under registered sale deed dated 29.11.1966. Thereafter, there was a partition between Ayiakkal and Ramasamy Gounder on 13.12.1967. In the said partition deed, Ayiakkal was allotted with 2 acre 80.5 cents and Ramasamy Gounder was allotted with 2 acre 70.5 cents. Ayiakkal sold her share to one Senkathal under registered sale deed dated 13.12.1967. The said Senkathal sold an extent of 0.7 ½ acres to Ramasamy Gounder on 16.02.1968. Thus, Ramasamy Gounder enjoyed the property purchased by him. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 are sons of Ramasamy Gounder. The plaintiffs 3 and 4 are sons of another deceased son of Ramasamy Gounder namely Chinnasamy. The daughters of Ramasamy Gounder, Thulasiammal @ Thulasi Mani and Lakshmi executed a release deed on 30.12.2013 releasing their share in favour of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and Chinnasamy. Chinnasamy during his lifetime executed a settlement deed in favour of plaintiffs 3 and 4 on 22.02.2019. Thus plaintiffs claim title over the suit property. It is also stated that the revenue documents also stand in the name of the plaintiffs and the same were produced along with the plaint. It is the further case of the respondents/plaintiffs that the defendant, who is an utter stranger to the suit property filed a suit in O.S.No.115 of 2019 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Palladam challenging the release deed executed by daughters of Ramasamy and settlement deed executed by Chinnasamy. Only after receipt of summons in the suit filed by the defendant, the plaintiffs acquired knowledge that the defendant had forged some documents, as if, it was executed by deceased Ramasamy in his favour. Thus claiming the sale deed executed by Ramasamy in favour of petitioner/defendant dated 19.05.1975 was a forged document, the suit was laid by the respondents seeking declaration of title and injunction. They have also challenged the sale deed dated 19.05.1975.

4. The petitioner/defendant filed instant application seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the prayer made by the respondents challenging the sale deed dated 19.05.1975, nearly 45 after years is hopelessly barred by limitation. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court.

5. Mr.P.Valliappan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondents filed the present suit challenging the sale deed executed 45 years ago and therefore, the said prayer is hopelessly barred by limitation. He further submitted that if the prayer challenging the sale