DINESH MEHTA,J. - (1.) The present appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed laying challenge to the judgment and decree dated 09.09.2016, passed by the learned District Judge, Jalore (hereinafter referred as "the Appellate Court"), in Civil Appeal No.05/2002, vide which, the judgment and decree dated 27.02.2002, passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalore in Civil Suit No.11/1997 (Kishnaram Vs. Kalu Ram and Ors.) has been affirmed. Mr. Rakesh Arora, learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, submitted that though both the Courts below have concurrently held against the appellant, yet there are two substantial questions of law, which if decided in his favour, both the judgments and decrees would be set aside and his suit would be decreed. The questions he suggested were as follows:- "(i) Whether the Courts below were legally justified in deciding the issue No. 5 '?' against the appellant and holding his suit to be time barred? (ii) Whether learned Courts below were justified in discarding statements of PW-1 (executor of document) and PW-4 and PW-5, the attesting witnesses who deposed that while executing the document dated 21.12.1983 the appellant and the attesting witnesses understood the same to be a mortgage deed and not a sale deed?" Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
(2.) As far as question of limitation is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant argued that contentious document came to be executed on 21.11.1983, but the plaintiff-appellant was under an impression that he had executed a mortgage deed in security of a loan of Rs.2,000/- which he had taken from the defendant Kalu, however, he came to know that the document which was got executed was a sale deed and not mortgage deed, only on 02.11.1987, when the defendants No.1 and 2 came to his plot and asked him to vacate the premises.
(3.) According to learned counsel for the appellant, the factum of the fraud having been committed with him has come to plaintiff's notice on 02.11.1987 and that is the point of time the cause of action to take legal remedies accrued to him, therefore, the limitation would commence from 02.11.1987. As such, the suit in question which had been filed on 17.11.1987, was well within the (3 of 7) [CSA-275/2016] prescribed period of limitation. According to him, in the facts obtaining in the present case, the limitation would start from 02.11.1987 and not from the date of execution of the contentious document dated 21.11.1983.;