KANA AND OTHERS Vs. GOPI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) plaintiff respondent No. I filed a suit seeking relief of cancellation of the sale deed dated 6.9.1962 and as a consequence thereof, for possession of the agricultural land which was the subject -matter of the transfer and for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession. After the defendants-petitioners filed their written statement and after the issues have been framed, they requested that the issue regarding the jurisdiction of the Court and that of limitation be decided as preliminary issues. The learned trial Judge vide his order dated 12.2.1998 has decided both the issues in favour of the plaintiff against which the present revision petition is being filed.

(2.) It is contended by the Counsel for the petitioners that the reliefs for possession and injunction could only be granted by the Revenue Court and therefore the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as it is filed. On true construction of the plaint the main relief which has been claimed by the plaintiff is for cancellation of the sale-deed dated 6.9.1962 alleging it to be a forged document and the reliefs for possession and injunction are the consequential reliefs arising and defendant on main relief claimed. The main relief is entertainable by the Civil Court and the trial Court has rightly decided the issue of jurisdiction in favour of the plaintiff, no interference is called for. As regards the question of limitation, the limitation is being claimed by the plaintiff on the ground that the alleged document sale-deed dated 6.9.1962 was a forged document which came to their knowledge only on 21.5.1994 and thus the suit is within the limitation.

(3.) On the other hand the defendant has denied the allegations made by the plaintiff regarding the document in question dated 6.9.1962. The plaintiff would be entitled for limitation only if he is being able to successfully prove that the document was forged and they came to know about the forgery only on 21.5.1994, that question can be decided only after the parties lead evidence. The issue regarding limitation could be decided by the Court only after the parties produce their evidence. The issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts which should not have been decided by the trial Court as a preliminary issue. The finding arrived at by the trial Court on issue No. 9 is set aside the issue is left open for decision on merits. In the result the revision petition is partly allowed. Petition partly allowed.