(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 04.12.2023 passed in I.A No.2 of 2020 in OS No.54 of 2016 on the file of the District Munsiff Cum Judicial Magistrate Court No.1 Hosur.)

1. This civil revision petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Court, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner, seeking rejection of plaint on the ground of limitation.

2. Though notice served on the respondents and their names appear in the cause list, there is no representation for them.

3. The respondents herein/plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.54 of 2016 for declaration of title and injunction. They also sought for declaration, declaring the sale deeds executed by the defendants 1 and 2 dated 21.01.1988, pursuant to the power deed were null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs.

4. According to the respondents/plaintiffs, the suit property is their ancestral property. The first plaintiff is father and other plaintiffs are his children. It is stated in the plaint that the plaintiff received a hand loan of Rs.20,000/- from the first defendant for family necessity and at that point of time, the first defendant obtained General Power of Attorney from the plaintiffs, regarding the suit property. Even though the plaintiffs repaid the loan amount of Rs.20,000/- to the first defendant within one year, the first defendant failed to cooperate for cancellation of General Power of Attorney. In the year 1992, there was acquisition of portion of the suit property by the government and in this connection, the plaintiffs approached the first defendant to hand over the papers to them. Since the plaintiffs have not received any positive reply, they obtained encumbrance certificate and acquired knowledge about the foul game played by the first defendant by executing a sale deed in favour of the 2nd defendant, by utilizing the said power deed. It is also stated that the 2nd defendant sold a portion of the property to the third defendant. Though the plaintiff convened a panchayat on 16.10.2015 seeking to settle the issue, there was no settlement arrived between the parties. Hence, the plaintiffs cancelled the general power of attorney on 08.03.2016 and filed the suit for the above said reliefs.

5. The petitioner herein/2nd defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of plaint on the ground of limitation. It is stated by the petitioner that though the sale deeds in question were executed on 03.04.1992, 25.11.1996 and the suit was filed only in the year 2016, after expiry of the limitation period. Therefore, the plaint ought to have been rejected. It is also stated by the petitioner that the allegations made by the plaintiffs in the plaint, as if they acquired knowledge about the sale deeds recently is illusory one and hence, the plaint is liable to be rejected. The Trial court dismissed the said application and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this court.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the sale deeds sought to be challenged in the plaint were executed nearly 18 years back and therefore, the present suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. He further submits that though the plaintiffs in their plaint averred that they acquired knowledge about the sale deed, after getting encumbrance certificate and convened panchayat on 16.10.2015 to settle the issue, the said averments are falsified by the plaint document No.6, which established that the encumbrance certificate was applied by the plaintiffs only during February 2016. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the power cancellation deed produced as plaint document No.4, the plaintiffs ratified all the acts done by the agent, pursuant to the general power of attorney. Therefore, on that ground also the plaint cannot be entertained.

7. A close perusal of the averments contained in the plaint and the plaint documents, especially plaint documents Nos.4 and 6 would indicate that the plaintiffs executed the power deed in favour of the first defendant on 21.01.1988. During continuance of power, the first defendant sold the property to the 2nd defendant on 03.04.1992. Subsequently, the 2nd defendant sold a portion of the suit property to the 3rd defendant on 25.11.1996. The execution of power deed by the plaintiffs in favour of the first defendant was not disputed by the plaintiffs. The sale deeds were executed, pursuant to the general power deed in the year 1992 to 1997 and the present suit has been filed, challenging the sale deeds only on 13.03.2016. The knowledge of the agent shall be treated as knowledge of the principal. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to plead that they had no knowledge about the sale deed executed by their agent, the first defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiffs in the year 2016, nearly after 18 years from the date of execution of sale deed is illusory one and hence, the suit is barred by limitation. In order to bring the suit within limitation, it was claimed by the plaintiffs that they acquired knowledge about the execution of sale agreements only after getting encumbrance certificate and immediately thereafter, they convened a panchayat on 16.10.2015 to settle the issue. However, the plaint document No.6 would indicate that encumbrance certificate was taken by the plaintiffs only on 15.03.2016, subsequent to the alleged panchayat. The plaintiffs convened the panchayat to settle the issue, even prior to the encumbrance certificate during October 2015. Therefore, the cause of action pleaded in the plaint, as if they acquired knowledge about the suit sale deeds only after getting encumbrance certificate is illusory cause of action made for the purpose of bringing the suit within limitation.

8. The Apex Court in its decision in T. Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal and others reported in AIR 1977 SC 2421 held that if the cause of action pleaded in the plaint is illusory, the plaint can be rejected. In the case on hand, first of all the plaintiffs are not entitled to plead ignorance of the act done by the agent. Secondly, the pleadings of the plaintiffs, as if they acquired knowledge only from the date of getting encumbrance certificate appear to be illusory one. Further, in the cancellation deed executed by the plaintiffs dated 08.03.2016, they clearly ratified all the acts done by the attorney by virtue of general power of attorney. In such circumstances, the suit filed by the plaintiff’s seeking declaration that the sale deeds executed by the defendants 1 and 2 were null and void appears to be barred by limitation, based on the averments found in the plaint and plaint documents. If the prayer sought for by the plaintiffs is held to be barred by limitation, the plaintiffs are not entitled to seek declaration of title and permanent injunction. Therefore, the entire plaint is liable to be rejected. The Trial Court, without appreciating the above position, erroneously dismissed the application.

9. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is allowed and the impugned plaint in O.S.No.54 of 2016 stands rejected. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.