VISHNU KHANNA Vs. AVINASH KAPOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants seek rejection of plaint under sub-rules (a) and (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII CPC intra alia on the following grounds:

(2.) Additionally, it was contended that, while the real owner of suit property was one Krishan Kumari Sharma, the three documents by virtue of which title is claimed by Late Dr. Pushpa Khanna were executed by one Satish Seth, a builder with whom the owner had entered into a collaboration agreement dtd. 05/09/1988, which was subsequently cancelled. No document has been placed on record by the plaintiff to show as to how the builder became the owner or had any authority to transfer the title of suit property to Late Dr. Pushpa Khanna.

(3.) Plaintiff has countered defendant's submissions by contending that the aforenoted documents were executed in favour of Late Dr. Pushpa Khanna in the year 1989, from which date she had remained in uninterrupted physical possession of the suit property, and during this period of 32 years, her title was never proactively challenged by the defendants. Thus, the challenge to her title now is hit by Article 58 of the Limitation Act.