JUDGMENT : SANJEEV J.THAKER, J. 1. The present Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the 6 th Adhoc District Judge, Mehsana dated 16.01.2018 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.45 of 2016 whereby the said appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree passed below Exhibit-19 under the provision of Order VII Rule 11 in Regular Civil Suit No.82 of 2015 by the Principal Civil Judge, Kadi was confirmed. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to plaintiff and defendant herein. 2. The plaintiff filed Civil Suit No.82 of 2015 and it is the case of the plaintiff in the plaint that they are the legal heirs of Isabbhai Usmanbhai Kureshi and the said Isabbhai Usmanbhai Kureshi expired on 27.11.1995 and the said Isabbhai Usmanbhai Kureshi was the father of plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 and grand father of defendant Nos.4 to 10 and it is the case of the plaintiff in the plaint that the suit property was owned by said Isabbhai Usmanbhai Kureshi and his brother Ahmed Usmanbhai Kureshi and a Revenue Entry was also effected by Revenue Entry No.2710. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that with respect to Survey No.121 at Mouje:Nandasan, Taluka Kadi, Jilla Mehsana, when the plaintiff got the certified copy of the village form No.7-11, in October-2015. It is at that time that the plaintiff came to know, that the defendant No.1 by a fraudulent signature, executed a registered sale deed No.495 on 06.05.1981 and it is the case of the plaintiff that the said signature is the sale deed does not bear the hand-writing of late Isabbhai Usmanbhai Kureshi and the witnesses to the said deed are also fraudulent and the plaintiff in the said suit has also stated that by way of Entry No.5386, the defendant No.1 has entered his name in the revenue record on 18.04.1988 by virtue of the said sale deed dated 06.05.1981. 4. 4. It is the case of the plaintiff, that the father of the plaintiff has not executed any sale-deed in favour of defendant No.1 and by virtue of the said sale deed dated 06.05.1981, the defendant No.1 has executed sale deed on 30.11.2005 in favour of one Navinbhai Chaudhari and Rameshbhai Chaudhari and Revenue Entry to that effect has taken place on 20.04.2006 by Revenue Entry No.7900, and thereafter, the said Navinbhai Chaudhari and Rameshbhai Chaudhari executed sale deed in favour of Dilipbhai Mangaldas on 05.01.2007 and on 08.07.2008 by registered sale deed, the said Dilipbhai Mangaldas has sold the suit property to defendant Nos.2 and 3, and therefore, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for the reliefs that the sale deed that has been executed on 06.05.1981 is on fraudulent signature of the father of the plaintiff No.1, 2 and 3 i.e. Isabbhai Usmanbhai Kureshi and that the signatories of the witnesses are also fraudulent. The plaintiff has also stated that the said sale deed be declared cancelled as there is no sale consideration that has been paid and/or received by late Isabbhai Usmanbhai Kureshi. 5. The plaintiff has also sought for a relief that the sale deed dated 06.05.1981 and all other documents that have been executed by virtue of sale deed dated 06.05.1981 be declared cancelled and has sought injunction with respect to the claim of possession in the suit property. The defendant appeared in the said suit and the defendant filed application vide Exhibit-25 under the provision of Order VII Rule 11 and after considering the plaint and the document annexed with the plaint, the trial Court rejected the plaint and aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff filed Regular Civil Appeal No.45 of 2016 and after reappreciating the facts of the case the appellate Court dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.82 of 2015. Hence, the present Second Appeal. 6. Learned advocate for the original plaintiff has mainly contended that the present suit could not have been rejected as the plaintiff in the said suit has categorically stated that the signatures of the father of the plaintiff No.1 to 3 are wrongly stated to be of late Isabbhai Usmanbhai Kureshi. Hence, the present Second Appeal. 6. Learned advocate for the original plaintiff has mainly contended that the present suit could not have been rejected as the plaintiff in the said suit has categorically stated that the signatures of the father of the plaintiff No.1 to 3 are wrongly stated to be of late Isabbhai Usmanbhai Kureshi. The learned advocate for the plaintiff has also argued that plaintiff has categorically stated that the fact of fraudulent document having been executed has come to the knowledge of plaintiff only in October-2014, and therefore, the suit is within the period of limitation. Learned advocate for the plaintiff has also drawn attention of the Court to the fact that there is categorically statement made by the plaintiff that the signatures that are mentioned in the sale deed are not of father of late Isabbhai Usmanbhai Kureshi, the fact of the knowledge of execution of the sale deed was only received in the month of October-2014, and therefore, the suit was within the period of limitation and the Court could not have rejected the plaint being barred by law. Learned advocate for the plaitniff has relied on the judgment reported in 2018 (6) SCC 422 in the case of Chhotanben and Another v. Kiritbhai Jalkrushnabhai and others and 2024 (0) AIJEL-SC 74555 in the case of Daliben Valjibhai v. Prajapati Kodarbhai Kachrabhai and has argued that at the time of deciding application under order VII Rule 11, the Court could only look into the plaint and documents annexed with the plaint and as there are triable issues as to the fact of knowledge of the plaintiff in October-2014 and the fact that the signatures in the sale deed are not of late Isabbhai Usmanbhai Kureshi and as they are triable issue involved in the present suit, the plaint could not be rejected at threshold in exercise of power under Order VII Rule 11(d), and therefore, the trial Court and the appellate Court could not have rejected the plaint, and therefore, it has been argued that there are substantial question of law which have been suggested in the memorandum of appeal, and therefore, the appeal is require to be admitted. 7. 7. Per contra, learned advocate for the respondent has argued that there are concurrent findings of the trial Court and the appellate Court on the factual aspect of the matter, and therefore, the same cannot be re-appreciated in the Second Appeal. Learned advocate for the defendant has also emphesized on the documents annexed with the plaint, more particularly, the Entry No.5836 dated 18.04.1988, whereby in village form No.6 with respect to survey No.1211/2 there is an entry with respect to registered sale deed dated 06.05.1981 and it has been argued that the disputed sale deed is mutated in the revenue entry by the said entry and it is only after 8 months that a succession entry by way of entry No.5516 is entered in the revenue record, therefore, the plaintiffs were aware in the year 1988 about the suit transaction and the plaintiffs have not filed any suit till 2015, and therefore, the suit is hopelessly time barred. It has been argued that though the plaintiffs have stated that the plaintiffs came to know about the mutation entry and the sale deed in the year 2014 but the fact remains that by way of mutation entry the fact of said sale deed dated 06.05.1981 was in knowledge of the plaintiffs in the year 1988. 8. Learned advocate for the defendant has also argued that the suit is preferred after 32 to 36 years of the said sale deed but the fact remains that the revenue entry No.5516 wherein the name of the legal heirs of deceased- Isabbhai Usmanbhai Kureshi was entered at that time the plaintiff ought to have knowledge about the registered sale deed. 9. Learned advocate for the defendant has relied on the judgment reported in Civil Revision Application No.186 of 2011 in case of Becharbhai Zaverbhai Patel & Anr. v. Jashbhai Shivabhai Patel & Ors. Learned advocate for the defendant has also relied on the judgment reported in (2007) 1 SCC 456 in the case of Gurdev Kaur and Others v. Kaki and Others , and in the case of Jaichand (Dead) through Lrs and Other v. Sahnulal and Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3864 which are with respect to scope of Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure. 10. 10. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and on perusal of the plaint and the documents annexed with the plaint and the judgment that have been passed by the trial Court in Civil Suit No.82 of 2015 and the judgment passed by the appellate Court in Civil Appeal No.45 of 2016. The following facts are admitted:- a. The plaintiffs have filed the present Suit with respect to the sale deed dated 06.05.1981. b. After the said sale deed, the purchaser have sold by way of registered sale deed dated 30.11.2006. c. There is a revenue entry No.5586 by virtue of the sale deed a mutation entry has been entered by revenue department vide sale deed No.55386 with respect to survey No.1211. d. That the succession entry after the death of deceased Isabbhai Usmanbhai Kureshi was entered in the revenue record by entry No.5516. e. The plaintiffs have filed the present Suit on 07.08.2015, the plaintiffs in the plaint have stated that the plaintiffs came to know about the suit transaction in October-2014. 11. In the present case, fact remains that by revenue entry in December-1988, when legal heirs of deceased Isabbhai Usmanbhai Kureshi, went before the revenue authority, they ought to have knowledge of revenue Entry No.5586, and therefore, it cannot be said that the plaintiff did not have knowledge of registered sale deed dated 06.05.1981 as there has never been entry No.5586, whereby the names of defendant has been entered on 30.11.2006 by virtue of sale deed, therefore, it can be clearly established that even in the year 1988, the plaintiffs were very much aware of the said transaction. Moreover, the fact that has also been considered, is that late Isabbhai Usmanbhai Kureshi, died on 27.11.1995 and till his life time, he has never challenged the sale deed and/or stated that the sale deed was not executed by the deceased Isabbhai Usmanbhai Kureshi. Moreover, from the fact of the present case, the suit having been filed after 32 to 36 years after the said sale deed and the revenue entry dated 06.05.1981 and the father late Isabbhai Usmanbhai Kureshi during his life time never claimed any right in the property and/or challenged the said sale deed dated 06.05.1981, in the present suit vague and ambiguous averments are made in the plaint without any details, proof of documents. Looking to the fact of the present case, present is the case of illusionary pleadings made to overcoming time of limitation the judgement that has been reported in Becharbhai Zaverbhai Patel v. Jashbhai Shivabhai Patel, relevant paragraph reads as under:- “6.1. It is not disputed that while considering application under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court is required to consider the averments in the plaint and the supporting documents produced along with plaint. However, it cannot be disputed that if on the face of it and even considering the averments made in the plaint, it is found that the suit is clearly barred of law of limitation, the plaint can be rejected in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.V.Srinivasan Murthy vs. Mariyamma (Dead) by proposed Lrs reported in AIR 2005 SC 2897 as well as decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilboo (Smt) (Dead) Bij lea (supra), the plaint can be rejected in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure if it is found that even accepting all the averments made in the suit, it is found therefore, the suit is barred by law limitation. Considering the above proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is required to be considered whether considering facts and circumstances of the present case and even considering averments made in the plaint and even accepting all the averments made in the plaint as they are, whether the suit is barred by law of limitation or not ? 12. In the said decision, it has been held that from claver drafting in the plaint and making vague averments and pleadings, the suit which is otherwise barred by law cannot be brought within the period of limitation. 13. Moreover, the averments that have been made are made on assumption and presumption and meritless claim is prayed for consideration which is hopelessly time barred. 13. Moreover, the averments that have been made are made on assumption and presumption and meritless claim is prayed for consideration which is hopelessly time barred. Moreover, in the present case, the original plaintiffs have contended that they have no knowledge and they came to know about the sale deed only when they applied for revenue entry in October-2014 and it is only when that the plaintiffs came to know about execution of the sale deed, but the fact remains that in the year 1988 when the plaintiff had gone before the revenue authority for getting their names mutated in the revenue record, the plaintiffs were very much aware of revenue entry No.5586 which has been entered prior to the mutation Entry No.5516 which has been entered in December-1988. Therefore, admittedly , the suit is beyond the period of limitation. Moreover, after considering the averments closely, the present suit that was filed was beyond the period of limitation. Moreover, the fact that the sale deeds under challenge are registered sale deeds and the date of registration will be the date of deemed knowledge as in the present case in the year 1988, the plaintiffs being legal heirs of late Isabbhai Usmanbhai Kureshi, themselves had gone before the revenue authority to get their name mutated with respect to the said survey No.1211, and therefore, they ought to have knowledge of revenue entry No.5586 whereby the entry with respect to the sale deed executed on 06.05.1981 have been entered in the revenue record. Moreover, the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to bring the suit within period of limitation which otherwise barred by law of limitation as the suit challenging the registered sale deed dated 06.05.1981 has been filed after the period of 32 to 36 years. 14. Moreover, as reported in Becharbhai Zaverbhai Patel v. Jashbhai Shivabhai Patel, paragraph No.6.2 reads as under:- “6.2. As stated above, registered sale deeds was executed by the original defendant no.1 in favour of original defendants no. 3 and 4 (petitioners herein) on dated 25.8.1975. It is also required to be noted and even so pleaded / averred in the plaint that mutation entry in favour of defendant nos. 3 and 4 on the basis of registered sale deed was made in the revenue record vide entry no.1115 and not only that even in 1981 there was partition between defendants no. It is also required to be noted and even so pleaded / averred in the plaint that mutation entry in favour of defendant nos. 3 and 4 on the basis of registered sale deed was made in the revenue record vide entry no.1115 and not only that even in 1981 there was partition between defendants no. 3 and 4 and the land bearing Survey No.380 (disputed suit land) has gone into the share of Ambalal Patel defendant no.4 and his name is mutated in the revenue record vide mutation entry no.1283 dated 10.6.1981.As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilboo (Smt) (Dead) Bij lea(supra) whenever the document is registered the date of registration becomes the date of deemed knowledge and in other cases where a fact could be discovered by due diligence then deemed knowledge would be attributed to the plaintiff because a party cannot be allowed to extend the period of limitation by merely claiming that he had no knowledge. Thus when the sale deed dated 25.8.1975 was registered in the year 1975 itself and even the mutation entry was made in favour of defendants no.3 and 4 on the basis of the registered sale deed immediately thereafter the plaintiff is deemed to have the knowledge of the said transaction and by making such vague averments in the plaint that earlier he had no knowledge and he came to know about the transaction only in the 2010, by such clever drafting the plaintiff cannot be permitted to bring the suit within the period of limitation which otherwise is barred by law of limitation as the suit challenging the registered sale deed dated 25.8.1975 has been filed after a period of 35 years. Under the circumstances and considering the aforesaid, it appears to the Court that learned trial Court has materially erred in rejecting the application Exh.14 and in not rejecting the plaint exercising the power under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court cannot be sustained and same deserves to be quashed and set aside.” 15. In the case of Jaichand (Dead) through Lrs and Other v. Sahnulal and Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3864 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:- “28. Under the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court cannot be sustained and same deserves to be quashed and set aside.” 15. In the case of Jaichand (Dead) through Lrs and Other v. Sahnulal and Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3864 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:- “28. It is thus clear that under Section 100 CPC, the High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the first Appellate Court which is the final Court of facts except in such cases where such findings were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law, or its settled position on the basis of the pronouncement made by the Apex Court or based upon inadmissible evidence or without evidence.” 16. Considering the submissions made and after examining the findings of both the Courts below on the issue raised in the suit and upon examining of the judgment and orders of both the Courts below, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned advocate for the appellants is unable to point out any infirmity, perversity or improprietary in the concurrent findings of the fact recorded by both the Courts below, not only that, the learned advocate for the appellant is unable to show that the findings recorded by the learned Courts are without any evidence or there is any illegality in the findings. 17. Under the circumstances, this Second Appeal is devoid of any substantial question of law. Both the learned Trial Court and first appellate Court have rightly decided the issue between the parties in the right perspective and as stated above no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. The appellants have failed to prove their case before the learned trial Court as well as before the first appellate Court. This Court does not find any substance in the present Second Appeal as the same is devoid of any merit both on facts and law and the same is dismissed at admission stage. 18. In view of the above, Civil Application stands rejected.