JUDGMENT :

This First Appeal arises out of the proceedings initiated by the 2^nd defendant, seeking to reject the plaint.

2.The 2^nd defendant filed an application I.A.No.6 of 2023 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. On enquiry, the trial Court has proceeded to reject the plaint. Challenging the said rejection of the plaint, the present appeal has been filed.

3.I have heard Mr.S.Diwakar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.S.K.Rahul Vivek, learned counsel for the contesting 1^st respondent, who took out an application for rejection of the plaint. The respondents 2 and 4, despite service, have not chosen to appear.

4.Mr.S.Diwakar, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the suit was filed for the reliefs of a preliminary decree for partition and for a declaration that the release deed dated 13.12.1996 is null and void, non-est and not binding on the plaintiff. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the plaintiff and the defendants are children of late S.Chakrapani and Jayalakshmi. The suit property was purchased by the father of the parties, in and by sale deed dated 26.05.1958, from and out of his own income. The plaintiff was married even at her age of 13 in 1963. The plaintiff's father died intestate, on 27.04.1996 and subsequently, the mother also died intestate, on 21.09.2000.

5.The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that the as a class-I legal heir, the plaintiff is an entitled to equal share in the suit property and when the plaintiff noticed that the defendants 1 and 2 had commenced demolition of the suit property, the plaintiff issued a letter on 12.12.2022, calling upon the defendants to come forward for partition and also share the profits. In reply, the defendants 1 and 2 informed the plaintiff that the plaintiff has already released her share in the suit property and hence, she did not have any right in the property. The plaintiff, alleging that she never signed any document, much less the release deed and that it has been brought about by impersonation and fraud, has filed the suit. The learned counsel for the appellant would therefore submit that no case was made out for rejection of the plaint and the trial Court ought to have relegated the parties to full fledged trial. He would therefore pray for the appeal suit being allowed.

6.Per contra, Mr.S.K.Rahul Vivek, learned counsel for the contesting 1^st respondent would submit that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation and when the plaintiff herself is a party to the release deed, executed even in December 1996, it is not open to the plaintiff to challenge the same at such belated point of time. He would further state that the suit has also been undervalued, as admittedly, the defendants have been in absolute possession and enjoyment, to the knowledge of the plaintiff and rightly, the trial Court has proceeded to reject the plaint. He would therefore state that no interference is warranted in this appeal.

7.I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.

8.The only point that arise for consideration is as to whether the 2^nd defendant has made out a case for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

9.The relationship between the parties is admitted. One of the daughters of late S.Chakrapani, has sought for partition of her 1/5^th share in the suit property. The plaintiff has been put on notice about the alleged released deed said to have been executed by her even in 1996. In the plaint, the plaintiff disowns the said release deed and categorically asserts that she never executed any such document and that it has been brought about by playing fraud and impersonation, as well as forgery.

10.It is the contention of the 2^nd defendant, who sought for rejection of the plaint, that the relief of declaration is hopelessly time barred; the suit ought to have been valued under Section 40 and not under Section 25; valuation under Section 37(2) is also incorrect, as t