JUDGMENT (Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 25.02.2019 made in I.A. No.389 of 2018 in O.S. No.21 of 2013 on the file of District Court - II, Kanchipuram.) 1. The present revision is preferred by the third defendant in O.S.No.21 of 2013, which is now pending adjudication before the District Court, Kancheepuram. The suit is laid for a declaration that certain sale deeds dated 24.02.2009 and 10.02.2010 are void. The present revision petitioner has taken out an application in I.A. No.389 of 2018 for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation. 2. The facts on either side are substantially admitted though not the inferences which each of the parties might project : * A certain block of property measuring about 2.56 acres originally belonged to one Iyer Murali Swaminathan. On 15.11.2005, he sold it to the plaintiff, Sridharan. According to the plaintiff, he was abducted and was made to execute a Power of Attorney dated 24.02.2009 under which he nominated and constituted one R.V.Raajah as his Power Agent. This Raajah is arrayed as the first defendant. On the very day, Raajah had sold the property to the second defendant M/s.Bhalakh Real Estate Private Limited. On 10.12.2010, the second defendant had sold the same property to the third defendant, which is the revision petitioner herein. * In the meantime on 01.10.2010, the plaintiff cancelled the Power of Attorney, which was executed in favour of the first defendant. He also caused issuance of notice of cancellation of the said Power of Attorney to the first defendant on 07.12.2010, which the latter had received on the next day, on 08.12.2010. * Immediately after executing a document cancelling the Power of Attorney on 01.10.2010, the plaintiff had executed a Deed of Settlement, settling the said property in favour of his wife. This was on 04.10.2010. However, a few months later, to be precise, on 25.03.2011, the plaintiff cancelled the Settlement Deed he had executed in favour of his wife. * In this setting, the plaintiff lays a suit for a declaration that both the successive sale deeds executed in favour of defendants 2 and 3 are null and void. He has also raised an alternate relief against the second defendant for creating a charge over the property. * In this setting, the plaintiff lays a suit for a declaration that both the successive sale deeds executed in favour of defendants 2 and 3 are null and void. He has also raised an alternate relief against the second defendant for creating a charge over the property. * The third defendant would now come out with an application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, and this came to be dismissed and hence the revision. 3. Mr.Sathish Parasaran, Senior Counsel, appearing for the revision petitioner, submitted that the facts being what they are and as narrated above, the plaintiff alleges in the plaint that he came to know about the alienation made by the Power of Attorney and also the subsequent alienations made by the second defendant in favour of the third defendant only on 22.11.2010 when he verified the encumbrance on the property. He wondered that the conduct of the plaintiff vis-a-vis the nature of allegations he had made in the plaint does not fit into the ordinary course of human conduct. Elaborating the same, the learned senior counsel submitted: *According to the plaintiff, the Power of Attorney was not executed voluntarily, but forcibly on 24.02.2009. But the plaintiff had taken about 20 months thereafter to cancel the Power of Attorney. He ought to have known that the Power of Attorney is capable of being used and hence the limitation would start from the date on which the Power of Attorney was executed. *The Plaintiff has not chosen to challenge the genuineness of the Power of Attorney, and as long as it is not challenged, he cannot sustain the prayers for declaration that the sale deed which the Power of Attorney had executed in favour of the second defendant is void. *Here, the plaintiff is seeking an alternate relief of creating a charge visa- vis first sale deed on the ground that he was not paid any consideration for the property. If at all the plaintiff has a cause of action, it could be only against the Power of Attorney, and if at all a charge could be created, it can also be directed only against the Power of Attorney and not against any of the successive purchasers, who after all, are bonafide purchasers for value. If at all the plaintiff has a cause of action, it could be only against the Power of Attorney, and if at all a charge could be created, it can also be directed only against the Power of Attorney and not against any of the successive purchasers, who after all, are bonafide purchasers for value. *All that the plaintiff has managed is to engage in clever drafting and it is obligatory on the part of the Court to see through the plaintiff's strategy, and try to filter the non-essentials to decoct the cause of action to test its ability for prima facie sustainability. If so tested, it would be evident that the suit is barred by limitation. He relied on the authorities Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kaluanji Bhanusali (Gajra)(D) Thr Lrs and others [ (2020) 7 SCC 366 ]; MST Rukhmabai Vs Lala Laxminarayan and others [ AIR 1960 SC 335 ] and Sukhbiri Devi & Others Vs Union of India & Ors [2009 SCC Online Del 2571] 5. Responding to the same, the learned counsel for the legal heirs of plaintiffs/ 1 to 5 respondents, (since the plaintiff had died), argued and took this Court through the specific facts of the case with reference to some of the documents made available before the Court. He would submit: * That the Power of Attorney dated 24.02.2009 was executed between 2 and 3 p.m in the office of the Sub Registrar, T.Nagar on 24.02.2009. It may be relevant to note that the plaintiff is stated to be a resident of Kattankulathur in Chengalpet Taluk, and the sale deed which the Power of Attorney had executed in favour of the second defendant was on the same day, and the document was presented between 3 and 4 p.m and this document was presented before the Sub Registrar Office, Wallajah, which is about 60 Kms away from T.Nagar Sub Registrar office. He also indicated that the sale deed has been pre-designed, since the Registration number of the Power of Attorney has been ink written and a blank space is left to fill the same in the sale deed. Arguing further, the learned counsel submitted that at the relevant time the plaintiff was down with Stage II cancer, and he could gather information only thereafter. Arguing further, the learned counsel submitted that at the relevant time the plaintiff was down with Stage II cancer, and he could gather information only thereafter. He also indicated that the sale consideration as per the sale deed in favour of the second defendant was a mere Rs.15.36 Lakhs, but few months later, the same property was sold by the second defendant to the third defendant for Rs.3,14,88,000/-. 6.1 Is the plaint a creation of a grand craftsmanship in drafting it that it hides an issue of limitation, or does it disclose a triable issue? The plaintiff's case is that he was abducted, and that on 24-02-2009, he was forced to execute a Power of Attorney in favour of the first defendant, who on its strength, on the same day executed a sale deed in favour of the second defendant for a sale price of Rs.15.36 lakhs. And, he was stated to be combating Stage II Cancer at the relevant time, and has since passed away. Some about 20 months later, on 10-12-2010, the second defendant had sold the property to the third defendant for Rs.Rs.3,14,88,000/-. A couple of months prior to the sale in favour of the second defendant, on 01-10-2010 to be precise, the plaintiff had cancelled the Power of Attorney and stated to have intimated it to the first defendant two days prior to the said sale. 6.2 The core issue is not whether the sale deeds sought to be cancelled on grounds intrinsic to the sale deeds, but whether the Power of Attorney was executed by the plaintiff voluntarily and freely in favour of the first defendant. If the Power of Attorney is obtained under duress as being pleaded by the plaintiff, then it vitiates not only the very validity of the Power of Attorney but everything that flows out of it. And, cancellation of Power of Attorney can be achieved without resort to judicial process. The decision to the dispute therefore, hinges on the validity of the cancellation of the Power of Attorney. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek accounts from the first defendant, or could he have the sale deeds executed depends on the outcome of the finding on this issue. Here, this Court finds that the arguments advanced on behalf of the revision petitioner appears to be hanging at a distance from the core issue. 7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek accounts from the first defendant, or could he have the sale deeds executed depends on the outcome of the finding on this issue. Here, this Court finds that the arguments advanced on behalf of the revision petitioner appears to be hanging at a distance from the core issue. 7. The plaintiff's case also indicates that there are elements of fraud involved. Now, if the power of attorney alleged to have been obtained under duress is tainted in a fraudulent scheme, then it deserves to be tried. After all, no fraud parades with a placard that it is one, and it has to be unearthed after a forensic endeavour. It involves complex question of fact and law. 8. Now, turning to the plea of limitation which the third defendant has taken up for seeking rejection of the plaint, it is essentially a mixed question of law and fact, for the reasons outlined earlier the validity of the sale deed in question appears more as a consequence of the validity of the cancellation of the Power of Attorney. Given this factual backdrop, application of limitation as a straight formula for rejecting the plaint is not available to the revision petitioner. 9. This Court does not find any reasons to interfere with the order of the trial Court dated 25.02.2019 in I.A.No.389 of 2018 in O.S.No.21 of 2013. This Court is not oblivious of the outer contours of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. See: Garment Craft Vs Prakash Chand Goel [ (2022) 4 SCC 181 ] 10. In conclusion, this revision is dismissed. No costs. The learned District Judge, District Court No.II, Kanchipuram is directed to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.21 of 2013, within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.