Limitation for filing a suit based on fraud begins from the date of knowledge of the fraud, not from the date of registration of the fraudulent document.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner-defendants challenge in civil revision the order dated 28.09.2022 passed by the Trial Court in O.S No. 8435/2018 wherein, their application seeking rejection of plaint filed under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) and (d) r/w Section 151 of CPC came to be rejected.

1.1. In short, the defendant-revision petitioners herein seek the rejection of a plaint instituted after lapse of 16 years from the date of execution of a registered sale deed on the grounds that the same is ex facie barred by limitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 , and that the plaintiffs had deemed knowledge of the same via registration of the impugned deed of sale on 30.08.2003. Conversely, the plaintiffs allege fraud and that the plaint had been promptly instituted upon the fact of execution and registration of the impugned instruments having come to their knowledge. The allegedly fraudulent execution of the impugned instruments however, have been followed by a change in the Khata of the scheduled property in favour of the defendants, respectively, as and when such impugned conveyances were executed.

2. The Respondents/ plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration of title, and recovery of possession, and more specifically seeking to declare the following:

I. The unregistered GPA dated 10.6.1999 purportedly executed by the plaintiff no.2 in favour of one deceased Sundarram Reddy is void, non-est and to be not binding on the plaintiffs;

II. The sale deed dated 30.08.2003, registered as document no. 3103/03-04 executed by the deceased Sundarram Reddy in favour of the defendants No.1 is void, non-est and to be not binding on the plaintiffs, and also further to cancel the said sale deed.

III. The Gift deed dated. 30.10.2016 executed by Defendant no.1 in favour of Defendant no.2, registered as document no. JGN-1- 03625/16-17 is void, non-est and to be not binding on the plaintiffs, and also further to cancel the said Gift deed.

3. The Plaintiffs claim to be the owner of the suit schedule property having inherited the same upon the demise of their mother Lingamma on 16.03.1993 and claim to be in joint possession of the same ever since. The deceased propositus acquired the schedule property vide Gift Deed dated 28.01.1974, registered as Document No. 3978/1973-74, conveyed by her husband and original owner, Late Abbaiah Reddy. Thereafter, upon becoming an absolute owner, the deceased propositus had further gifted two portions within the larger gifted property, to her sisters vide two separate registered Gift Deeds dated 01.04.1974. The remainder thereof is the scheduled property herein.

4. The plaint further reveals that the plaintiffs had agreed to partition the suit schedule property at a later date amongst the plaintiffs, and further, include one Shri Sundarram Reddy as a sharer in the schedule property. Shri Sundarram Reddy is described as a cousin of the Plaintiffs No. 2, 6, and 7 and is alleged to have been in permissive possession of the scheduled property, as another property in the exclusive ownership of Shri Sundarram Reddy, was in joint possession of the plaintiffs and Shri Sundarram Reddy as one whole property. Hence, the plaintiffs contend that the plaintiffs and Shri Sundarram Reddy (d. 18.12.2015) have been in joint possession of the scheduled property ever since.

5. Thereafter, upon long passage of time, the plaintiffs contend that upon approaching the defendant No. 1 (wife of late Shri Sundarram Reddy) and requesting the latter to handover the possession of the scheduled property to the plaintiffs, the defendant No. 1 refused the same and per contra, alleged that she had been in possession of the same as a rightful and absolute owner, as a purchaser of the scheduled property vide sale deed dated 30.08.2003, registered as document No.3103/03-04, in the office of the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar, Basavangudi. The plaint further reveals that the said sale deed had been executed by the now deceased Shri Sundarram Reddy, in his purport