ORDER :

1. This civil revision petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Court, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner, seeking rejection of plaint on the ground of limitation.

2. Though notice served on the respondents and their names appear in the cause list, there is no representation for them.

3. The respondents herein/plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.54 of 2016 for declaration of title and injunction. They also sought for declaration, declaring the sale deeds executed by the defendants 1 and 2 dated 21.01.1988, pursuant to the power deed were null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs.

4. According to the respondents/plaintiffs, the suit property is their ancestral property. The first plaintiff is father and other plaintiffs are his children. It is stated in the plaint that the plaintiff received a hand loan of Rs.20,000/- from the first defendant for family necessity and at that point of time, the first defendant obtained General Power of Attorney from the plaintiffs, regarding the suit property. Even though the plaintiffs repaid the loan amount of Rs.20,000/- to the first defendant within one year, the first defendant failed to cooperate for cancellation of General Power of Attorney. In the year 1992, there was acquisition of portion of the suit property by the government and in this connection, the plaintiffs approached the first defendant to hand over the papers to them. Since the plaintiffs have not received any positive reply, they obtained encumbrance certificate and acquired knowledge about the foul game played by the first defendant by executing a sale deed in favour of the 2^nd defendant, by utilizing the said power deed. It is also stated that the 2^nd defendant sold a portion of the property to the third defendant. Though the plaintiff convened a panchayat on 16.10.2015 seeking to settle the issue, there was no settlement arrived between the parties. Hence, the plaintiffs cancelled the general power of attorney on 08.03.2016 and filed the suit for the above said reliefs.

5. The petitioner herein/2nd defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of plaint on the ground of limitation. It is stated by the petitioner that though the sale deeds in question were executed on 03.04.1992, 25.11.1996 and the suit was filed only in the year 2016, after expiry of the limitation period. Therefore, the plaint ought to have been rejected. It is also stated by the petitioner that the allegations made by the plaintiffs in the plaint, as if they acquired knowledge about the sale deeds recently is illusory one and hence, the plaint is liable to be rejected. The Trial court dismissed the said application and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this court.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the sale deeds sought to be challenged in the plaint were executed nearly 18 years back and therefore, the present suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. He further submits that though the plaintiffs in their plaint averred that they acquired knowledge about the sale deed, after getting encumbrance certificate and convened panchayat on 16.10.2015 to settle the issue, the said averments is falsified by the plaint document No.6, which established that the encumbrance certificate was applied by the plaintiffs only during February 2016. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the power cancellation deed produced as plaint document No.4, the plaintiffs ratified all the acts done by the agent, pursuant to the general power of attorney. Therefore, on that ground also the plaint cannot be entertained.

7. A close perusal of the averments contained in the plaint and the plaint documents, especially plaint documents Nos.4 and 6 would indicate that the plaintiffs executed the power deed in favour of the first defendant on 21.01.1988. During continuance of power, the first defendant sold the property to the 2^nd de