A court deciding an application for rejection of a plaint must strictly confine its assessment to the plaint's averments. Limitation claims involving disputed dates of knowledge are mixed questions of fact and law that require evidence and should not be determined summarily at the threshold.

JUDGEMENT :

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

1. The Defendants No.2 and 3 jointly, Defendants No.4 and 5 jointly, Defendant No.6 individually and Defendant No.7 individually (Respondents No.2 and 3, Respondents No.4 and 5, Respondent No.6 and Respondent No.7 herein), filed applications respectively, under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), with Defendants No.6 and 7 specifically mentioning the provision of sub-Rule (a) and (d) of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, before the Learned Principal District Judge, Gangtok, in Title Suit No.32 of 2022, seeking rejection of the Plaint filed by the Plaintiff (Appellant herein). The Learned Court vide the impugned Order, dated 14-09-2023, concluded that although the Plaint disclosed a cause of action, but it was barred by the law of limitation and rejected the Plaint. Aggrieved thereof, the Plaintiff/ Appellant is before this Court assailing the Order.

2. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their litigative status before the Learned Trial Court.

3. To comprehend the matter in its correct perspective, a brief summation of facts are essential. The Plaintiff filed a Suit for declaration, recovery of possession, injunction and other consequential reliefs valued at Rs. 50,00,00,000/- (Rupees fifty crores) only, before the Court (supra). The Plaintiff and Defendant No.8 are brothers. The Plaintiff's case is that when he was a minor, his father, Late Churamani Sharma had sold an area measuring 2.30 acres, bearing Plot No.571, situated at West Pendam Block, Gangtok District, Sikkim, to Defendant No.2, the Horticulture Department, Government of Sikkim. His father passed in the year 1989. From 2012 to 2018 when the Defendant No.8 was posted as Assistant Engineer at Pakyong District, he was told by one Churamani Dhakal that, papers regarding land, belonging to their father “Churamani Sharma” was sent to him by the Defendant No.2, mistaking him to be Churamani Sharma. As he had cordial relations with Churamani Sharma, he informed his namesake of the above facts. Their father, however suffered a stroke and consequent speech impairment, but prior in time he had mentioned to the Plaintiff that compensation had not been paid to him by Defendant No.2 for the property acquired (supra) from him, although compensation for standing crops had been paid. Pursuant to the information from Churamani Dhakal, Defendant No.8 made enquiries relating to the land acquisition of their father and payment of compensation thereof. After wending through official procedure, including an application filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005, before the Defendant No.3, a joint verification of the records was carried out with the concerned officials of the Defendant No.2, Defendant No.4 and the Defendant No.8 on 20-12-2019. The records with Defendant No.3 revealed that, the property was recorded in their late father's name during 1950-52 as Plot No.571 measuring 2.30 acres. During 1979- 80 the said landed property was re-numbered as Plot No.2233, 2229/P, 2234/p and 2235/p, of which only Plot No.2233, measuring a total area of 1.60 acres, was found to be recorded in the name of the Defendant No.2. The other three plot numbers were found to be recorded in the name of the private Defendants No.6 and 7. It was also found that, vid