The period of limitation for cancellation suits starts from the date of knowledge of the document's execution, not its signing, necessitating evidence for determination.

JUDGMENT :

YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard Sri Devansh Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. With the consent of counsel for the parties, the appeal is taken up for admission/final disposal.

3. The instant appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (u) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, [CPC] is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.5.2025 passed by the Additional District Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sonbhadra in Civil Appeal No.32 of 2024 ( Vidyakant Pandey and others vs. Mateswari Devi and others ).

4. The civil appeal had arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 28.3.2024 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sonbhadra in Original Suit No.303 of 2003 (Harishanker & Ors. vs. Smt. Mateswari & Anr.), whereby the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC moved by the defendants, vide paper no.102ga, was allowed and the plaintiffs' suit was dismissed.

5. The factual background of the case is being set out herein below.

6. Originally, the father of the respondents, namely Hari Shanker had instituted a suit for cancellation of a sale deed dated 9.7.1978 in respect of plot no.55Aa ad-measuring an area of 3 Bigha 10 Biswa and 13 Dhur, and plot no.55Ba ad-measuring an area 8 Biswa 18 Dhur, situate at Village Tarawan, Pargana Barher, Tehsil Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra. The said suit was instituted on 8.10.2003 for cancellation of a sale deed dated 9.7.1978, registered on 17.11.1978. Plaintiff no.1 in paragraph 8 of his plaint explained the delay in institution of the suit, contending that he had no prior knowledge about the said sale deed and he was a 70 years old man whose children resided outside the village. Subsequently, after his children returned to the village, the entries recorded in the revenue records were inspected and for the first time knowledge of the said sale deed was gained by the plaintiffs on 10.4.2003.

7. The defendants filed their written statements as paper nos.31A and 37A, inter alia, asserting that it was after a lapse of almost 25 years, a challenge to the said sale deed was being raised without disclosing the specific dates on which the inspection of revenue records was conducted. The trial Court, vide order dated 17.7.2007, had framed the issues. One additional issue was also framed on 6.1.2011 pertaining to maintainability of the plaintiffs’ suit.

8. During the course of evidence being led, an application under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC came to be filed by the defendants stating that the suit instituted by the plaintiffs was time barred and liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC. In the above mentioned application, the defendants, inter alia, took the following grounds:

(i) The limitation for institution of a suit for cancellation of a document is 3 years. However, the suit was instituted after a lapse of almost 25 years.

(ii) The plaintiff/father of the respondents had admitted in the plaint that the name of the defendants/appellants had been recorded in the revenue records.

(iii) The plaintiff by clever drafting had tried to explain the delay by stating that the knowledge regarding the said sale deed was first obtained in April, 2003. However, the said fact was contradicted since the plaintiff had admitted to the fact that he was a 70 years old man and his children reside outside the village, which made it apparent that the plaintiff had never been in possession over the suit