ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 05.10.2021, passed in I.A.No.252 of 2021 in O.S.No.1746 of 2020 by the learned XX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. O.S.No.1746 of 2020 is filed by respondents No.1 to 9/Plaintiffs for cancellation of release deed and injunction. During the pendency of the suit, petitioners/defendants No.1 to 3 filed I.A. No.252 of 2021 under Order VII Rule 11 (a) & (d) of C.P.C seeking the rejection of plaint. The trial Court after considering the arguments on both sides dismissed the application on 05.10.2021. The trial Court held that the question of limitation is not always a pure question of law, but is a mixed question of fact and law. When several other factual aspects are also to be gone into while deciding a question of law involved, rejection of plaint at the threshold cannot be sustained. Aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, petitioners preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.

3. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that respondents No.1 to 9 filed O.S.No.1746 of 2020 for cancellation of Release Deed bearing document No.1428/1992 dated 02.06.1992 as null and void and not binding on plaintiffs and for injunction against respondents No.10 and 11 herein. Plaintiffs and defendants are legal heirs of late Mahmood Salam Bin Ba-Masaq i.e., plaintiffs No.1 to 6 and defendants No.4 and 5 are daughters, plaintiff No.7 is widowed daughter- in-law, plaintiff No.8 is grandson and defendant No.2 and 3 are her daughters. Mahmood Salam Bin Ba-Masaq died on 12.04.1992 leaving behind plaintiffs and defendants as his legal heirs. The Husband of petitioner No.1/defendant No.1 used to stay in the suit schedule property, after his death, relationship of defendants No.1, 4 and 5 got strained with plaintiffs. On 06.08.2020 plaintiff Nos.3 and 6 got information that defendant No.1 and others are making efforts to alienate the suit schedule property and as such they gave notice through their counsel in Urdu daily newspaper. On 11.08.2020 they received caveat petitions and plaintiffs were surprised to know about release deed executed and registered in the year 1992 in favour of husband of petitioner No.1/defendant No.1. According to plaintiffs, husband of defendant No.1 is a minor in the year 1992 and as such the release deed is void. Respondents No.1 to 9/plaintiffs submitted that they never executed any release deed and their signatures were forged and as such they filed the suit. As per the public notice, plaintiff Nos.3 and 6 are absolute owners and possessors of the suit schedule property, but it is not given in the plaint.

5. Petitioners No.1 to 3/Defendant Nos.1 to 3 after filing their appearance, filed I.A for rejection of the plaint stating that since the date of execution of release deed on

02.06.1992 till the date of filing of the suit, none of the parties have claimed any share in the suit schedule property. If at all plaintiffs had a share in the property, they could have claimed their share immediately after the death of late Mahmood Salam Bin Ba-Masaq on 12.04.1992, but they kept quiet for 29 long years. As such, the suit is barred by limitation. The husband of petitioner No.1/Defendant No.1 and after his death, his legal heirs, defendants No.1 to 3 are in continuous, uninterrupted possession of the suit schedule property. As per the practice prevailing in the year 1992, the Release deed was not required to be signed by the Releasee but only the releasers used to sign on the document. However, the age of releasee i.e., husband of petitioner No.1/defendant No.1 was mentioned as 18 years in the said document which shows that he was not minor at that time. Therefore, requested this Court to set aside the order of the trial Court.

6. The main contention of the petitioner is that the suit is barred by limitation and it is filed after 29 years.

Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C reads as follows:

11. Rejection of pla