A suit may be barred by time if filed beyond the statutory limit after the plaintiff has been notified of the relevant facts, with notice service presumed upon proper address and postage.

ORDER :

G. S. AHLUWALIA, J.

This second appeal, under section 100 of CPC, has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 4/8/2010 passed by IV Additional District Judge, Morena in Civil Appeal No.1A/2010, as well as, judgment and decree dated 20/11/2009 passed by II Civil Judge Class I, Morena in Civil Suit No.12A/2008.

2. Appellant is defendant, who has lost his case from both the Courts below.

3. Facts necessary for disposal of present appeal, in short, are that plaintiff Munni Devi filed a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction by pleading inter alia that she is the owner and in possession of House No.450, area 1107 square feet, situated in Ward No.30, Tulsi Colony, Ganeshpura, Morena. The said plot was purchased by plaintiff by registered sale deed dated 18/5/1994 from Ramjilal and, thereafter, with the help of her her husband and son, she has constructed a house and her name is recorded in the revenue records, as well as, in the records of Municipal Council, Morena in the capacity of owner. The suit house is the disputed property. It was pleaded that after the plot was purchased, defendant Nos. 4 and 5, either themselves or with the help of somebody else, had stolen the original sale- deed of the house and plaintiff could not get information about the theft of said registry and she was under the impression that her sale-deed has been misplaced. On 18/8/2006, a letter was received from the Office of defendant No.3 which was addressed to her son Bhupendra, according to which it was claimed that the house in dispute was mortgaged with M.P. Finance Corporation and, accordingly, Bhupendra was directed to vacate the disputed property as the house is under auction by defendant No.3. After receiving the said letter, plaintiff got surprised and, accordingly, she went to the Office of defendant No.3 along with her son Bhupendra and informed that she has not taken any loan. Then, the file of defendant Nos. 4 and 5 was called by defendant No.3. Then, plaintiff came to know that the house in question has been mortgaged. In the file, plaintiff saw that photograph of Meera W/o Purushottam is affixed in her place. It is also pleaded that her son Bhupendra informed defendant No.3 that plaintiff has neither taken any loan nor has mortgaged the property, nor photograph is of plaintiff, nor thumb impression is of plaintiff. Thereafter, defendant No.3 did not show the file any further and instructed the plaintiff to call defendant Nos. 4 and 5. When plaintiff tried to obtain the attested copy of aforesaid document under RTI, then neither defendant No.3 accepted the application nor supplied the copy. Thereafter, plaintiff sent a notice under section 80 of CPC and also requested to take legal action against the persons who have manipulated the things, then defendant No.3 directed the plaintiff to deposit the fees. Accordingly, on deposit of Rs.80/-, copy of certain documents were provided from which plaintiff came to know that the sale deed of plaintiff is mortgaged with defendant No.3, which was in fact stolen either by defendant Nos.4 and 5 or through their agent. It was also pleaded that all the documents contained in the file of defendant No.3 are forged documents, which were never executed by plaintiff. It was the case of plaintiff that on the basis of forged documents, property which was in the ownership and possession of plaintif