KESHAV PRASAD SHARMA Vs. HALKE RAIKWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall finally decide W.P. No. 10239/2007 (Keshav Prasad Sharma Vs. Halke Raikwar and another) and W.P. NO. 11237/2008 (Keshav Prasad Sharma Vs. Jodhan Singh and others).

(2.) The short facts necessary for disposal of these writ petitions are that Haike Raikwar, in his capacity as plaintiff, and Jodhan Singh also in his capacity as plaintiff, filed different civil suits seeking declaration and injunction against the present petitioner/defendant that the sale deed in question was sham and bogus. It was not to be acted upon. It was a security- cum- guarantee for the loan extended by the defendant to the plaintiffs. It was also submitted in each of the plaint that contemporaneous document was also executed with an understanding that the suit property would be re-conveyed in favour of the plaintiff. In each of the civil suit, each of the plaintiff pleaded that he was in possession of the property, he went to the defendant for re-conveyance, who asserted his title on the basis of sham and bogus documents and intimated the plaintiff that instead of re-conveying the property to the plaintiff, he would sell the property to third party for dispossessing the plaintiff, therefore, the plaintiff was required to file the suit. It was also pleaded that the defendant is a money lender who had extended loan to number of persons and has also secured identical documents as a guarantee of loan though in fact the possession of the property continued with every such land holder.

(3.) After notice the defendant appeared before the Court and instead of filing his written statement filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure with a submission that limitation for declaration in relation to a registered document is three years and as the suit has been filed after lapse of seven years, the suit was barred under clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII and the plaint be accordingly, rejected.