IMPORTANT POINT
If a suit for declaration of sale-deed as null and void is brought jointly with suit for cancellation such a deed, in computing period of limitation in filing such suit, Article 59 of Limitation Act, 1963 attracted.

A.C. Upadhyay, J.—This second appeal is I directed against the judgment and order dated 27.2.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Belonia, South Tripura, in Title Appeal No.22 of 2006, arising out of T.S.No.42 of 2004.

2. Heard Mr. B. Das, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff. Also heard Mr. D.C. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the defendant.

3. The plaintiff instituted T. S. No. 42 of 2004 praying for a declaratory decree and for cancellation of the deed of sale and also for declaration of title and permanent injunction on the allegation that the plaintiff had been in possession of the land covered by Khatian No.1776 under allotment dated 12.9.1975. The plaintiff stated that after having taken over possession of the land, he started rubber plantation in the suit land. Subsequently, land measuring 7.47 acres was also mutated in his name on 29.6.1996. Thus, being the lawful possessor of the said land, the plaintiff had received various loans and subsidies from the Rubber Board from time to time. The plaintiff stated that although the plaintiff and the defendant hailed from common geniality and are brothers in relation, but they severed their messes long before and started living separately. According to the plaintiff, after the separation of the family, a conflict arose between the brothers regarding shares of the family properties. The defendant being more or less economically weaker was favoured with greater share of the common ancestral properties. The plaintiff further stated that the defendant was not satisfied with the share of the properties and, accordingly, started getting anxious towards the property in possession of the plaintiff, which was the self-acquired property of the plaintiff.

4. The plaintiff admitted that in the year 1997 due to constant pressure of the family, well wishers and political leaders, the plaintiff had agreed to give away his right in favour of the defendant in exchange of a minimum price of Rs. 40,000 for 4.10 acres of land together with the well-grown rubber plant out of total 7.47 acres. Accordingly, the registered deed of sale was executed by the plaintiff in the year 1997 for a land measuring 4’10 acres, more particularly described in the suit schedule. The sale deed in question was executed in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Belonia on 15.11.1997. The plaintiff further stated that ‘although in the registered deed of sale there was a recital that out of the total consideration money of Rs .40,000, only Rs.3,000 was paid to the plaintiff and the balance amount of Rs. 37,000 would be positively given within one year from the date of execution of the sale deed, but the plaintiff alleged that not a single peny was given to the plaintiff by the defendant. The plaintiff further stated that the possession in respect of the land in question remained with the plaintiff as the defendant did not come forward to take possession and nurture the rubber plantation growing in the plot of land by him. According to the plaintiff, the defendant tried to dispossess him by instituting a proceeding under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. However, having failed to do so, ultimately under pressure, compelled the plaintiff to execute another deed of acknowledgment of remittance of the dues amounting to Rs.37,000 in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Belonia on 10.6.2004 as he was frightened with the threat that otherwise he would be dispossessed from the other portion of the suit land. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed the suit for cancellation of the sale deed, declaration of title and permanent injunction.

5. The defendant entered appearance and contested the suit by filing written statement stating therein that the suit is not maintainable for improper valuation of the suit and on principles of waiver, acquiescence and estoppels. According to the defendant the suit is barred by law of limitation. The deed, which has been intended to be impea