In Brief
Chhotanben and Anr sued to set aside a 1996 sale deed involving ancestral joint property, claiming they never authorized it and had no knowledge of it until 2013. The buyers applied to dismiss the suit as time-barred (over 17 years old). The trial court rejected this application, treating limitation as a triable issue given the plaintiffs' allegations of fraud and ignorance. The High Court reversed, holding the suit barred. The Supreme Court held that when a plaint alleges fraud, forgery, and lack of knowledge, whether limitation applies becomes a factual question for trial, not something to be decided at the threshold. A plaint cannot be summarily rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) on limitation grounds when disputed facts go to when the cause of action arose. The Court reversed the High Court and restored the trial court's order, allowing the suit to proceed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.