ARUKKANI Vs. NALLAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE arguments advanced by Mr.T.Dhanyakumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and by Mr.R.Subramanian, learned counsel for the respondent are heard. The materials produced in the form of typed set of papers are also perused.

(2.) THE defendants in the original suit O.S.No. 100/2010 on the file of Sub Court, Namakkal are the petitioners in this revision. The respondent herein/plaintiff filed the above said suit for partition and other reliefs. In the plaint a specific plea was made that the partition deeds dated 15.05.1987 and 10.07.2008 were executed as sham and nominal by the other co -sharers in order to defraud the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2. Contending further that the said partition deeds being sham and nominal would not bind the plaintiff/respondent herein, the plea for partition and other reliefs came to be made by the respondent herein/plaintiff.

(3.) ACCORDING to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the sole ground on which the plea for rejection of the plaint was made by the petitioners is that the suit is barred by limitation. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the bar of limitation has got to be raised as an issue and the same should be decided by the court and the same cannot be the ground for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. According to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent, though Order VII Rule 11 CPC contains a sub clause designated as (d) that the plaint shall be rejected where the suit appears from the statement from the plaint to be barred by any law, the question of limitation being a mixed question of law and fact, cannot be decided in the light of the pleadings made by the plaintiffs, wherein there is nothing in the pleading itself to indicate that the bar of limitation gets attracted.