Mrs. Anita Chaudhry, J.:- This revision has been filed by the defendant as his application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC had been dismissed.

2. The basic facts necessary for disposal of the revision are being given. The plaintiff and the defendants are legal heirs of late Rehtu Ram. The plaintiff filed a suit laying challenge to the decree dated 09.02.1976 and it was pleaded to be collusive. The plaintiff was seeking declaration and joint possession of properties and plot allotted under the oustee quota. He was also seeking directions to the defendants to pay back 1/7th share of compensation received by defendant no.1 from HUDA, consequent upon acquisition of their land. The plaintiff was asserting that the property was ancestral and he had a right in it by birth.

3. The defendants filed their written statement. In the written statement filed by defendants no.3 to 5, legal objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, non-joinder, estoppel, limitation, resjudicata were raised. It was pleaded that the suit was based on fraud and the property was not ancestral and defendant no.1 had acquired share in the property by Civil Court decree and Rehtu Ram had suffered a decree in 1981 regarding his half share in favour of Raghbir Singh and Raghbir Singh became the full owner. It was pleaded that the plaintiff fell in bad company and Rehtu Ram asked all his sons to severe all connections with him. It was pleaded that a civil suit had been filed by the plaintiff and some suits were filed by Raghbir and a compromise was effected in 1989. It was pleaded that plaintiff along with defendant no.4 attacked and caused injuries to Sewa Ram defendant and a case was registered and the plaintiff along with others was convicted and an appeal was filed which was disposed of in 1999. It was pleaded that the plaintiff filed another suit in 2003 which was compromised and the plaintiff had admitted that the property was selfacquired property of Rehtu Ram.

4. Defendants no.1, 3 and 5 moved an application seeking rejection of the plaint on the plea that the suit had been filed without giving any details and without paying proper Court fee. It was pleaded that the plaintiff had no cause of action and earlier a suit had been filed in 1988 where a compromise was effected and the suit was barred by limitation and the plaint had been cleverly drafted to avoid payment of Court fee and it was in fact a suit for possession and recovery of compensation.

5. The plaintiff filed its reply and pleaded that defendant no.1 had concealed the amount of compensation received by him and the plaintiff was claiming his right since the property was ancestral. It was pleaded that the decree had been obtained by fraud and suit was not barred by limitation. It was averred that the alleged compromise was not signed or agreed by him and it was obtained by fraud.

6. The trial Court dismissed the application holding that the issues could only be examined after the parties had led the evidence and the issue of limitation was a mixed question of law and fact and it was yet to be proved whether any compromise had been effected.

7. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner.

8. The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that the plaintiff was seeking declaration without seeking the relief of possession and a suit for declaration was not maintainable and the plaint has been cleverly drafted and it should have been rejected as the plaintiff had no cause of action. It was urged that the plaintiff was seeking recovery of the amount received as compensation and therefore, he was to pay the Court fee and the suit was also barred by res judicata. It was urged that the suit was bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties and the trial Court had wrongly dismissed their application. Reliance was placed upon Mehar Chand Das Vs. Lal Babu Siddique and others, 2007(2) RCR (Civil) 628, Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society, Vs. M/s. Ponniamman Educational