Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J. - (1.) This revision has been filed against the order dated 14.8.2013 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hapur in Original Suit No. 29/2013, Smt. Puspa Rani and Anr. v. Shiv Kumar Tyagi and others , by which preliminary issue No.-3 relating to bar of suit under Order 7, Rule-11 CPC was decided in negative.
(2.) In original suit it was pleaded that plaintiff and defendants No. 1 to 6 are real brothers and sisters, and are sons of Mahavir Prasad Tyagi, who had expired on 22.2.2007. They and their father were members of Joint Hindu Family. Mahavir Prasad had inherited disputed agricultural property and became its bhumidhar. After the death of Mahavir Prasad, plaintiff and defendants No. 1 to 6 became the co-owners of 1/7 share each of disputed agricultural plots. After amendment in Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, the Mahavir Prasad had no right to execute sale-deed of whole of the disputed agricultural property, but he had sold this property by registered sale-deed dated 31.1.2006 to defendant No.-7. Said sale-deed was executed without consent of the plaintiff, without getting the disputed land partitioned and without giving any consideration to plaintiff; so said sale-deed is illegal and void. On these grounds the plaintiff had filed suit for cancellation of aforesaid sale-deed executed by her father Mahavir Prasad in favour of defendant No.-7, and for permanent injunction restraining defendant No.-7 to interfere in her joint possession of disputed property.
(3.) After filing of written-statement, then trial court had framed several issues. Issue No.-2 was as to whether court has jurisdiction to decide the suit, issue No.-3 was as to whether suit is barred by provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. Issue No.-7 was as to whether suit is time barred. Issue No.-3 was relating to bar of Order 7, Rule 11 , was taken as preliminary issue and was decided by trial court through its impugned order dated 14.8.2013, in negative, against which present revision has been filed.;