JUDGMENT: This Appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 08.09.2023, passed by the I Additional District Judge, at Warangal, in A.S.No.10 of 2023, whereby and whereunder the order, dated 23.01.2023, passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, in I.A.No.499 of 2022 in O.S.No.284 of 2012 was set aside. 2. The appellants herein are the defendants and respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit, before the trial Court. For convenience, hereinafter, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. 3. The brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.284 of 2012 against the defendants, seeking cancellation of the registered sale deed bearing document No.234/2001, dated 14.05.2001 and also for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. In the plaint, it is averred that plaintiff is the owner of land in Sy.No.521/B, to an extent of Acs.2.24 gts, situated at Bollikunta Village, Warangal District (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit schedule land’); that defendant No.1-Educational Society is running college which is situated towards eastern side of the suit schedule property; that defendant No.2, who is a relative of plaintiff and Ex-Member of Parliament, approached the plaintiff and requested to execute nominal sale deed in respect of land in Sy.No.521/B, admeasuring Ac.1.00 guntas out of Acs.2.24 gts, belonging to plaintiff, stating that defendant No.1 required to be in possession of Acs.40.00 guntas of land to obtain permission from AICTE to run a college; that initially, plaintiff refused, however, on repeated requests and force of defendant Nos.1 and 2, he executed a nominal sale deed vide Document No.234/2001, dated 14.05.2001, in respect of land in Sy.No.521/B, admeasuring Ac.1.00 guntas, without any consideration and delivery of possession of the land; that on the date of execution of nominal sale deed itself, a precondition was stated that the said nominal sale registered deed would not confer any right or title over the property to the defendants and the defendants agreed to cancel the said deed without fail, whenever the plaintiff demands. 3.1. 3.1. It is further averred that defendants have executed an Agreement-cum-Undertaking stating that the sale deed vide Document No.234/2001 was only for the purpose of getting permission from AICTE to defendant No.1-Educational Society and admitted that no title or rights are conferred to the defendants; that in pursuance of the nominal sale deed, possession was not delivered to the defendants even after execution of nominal sale deed in favour of the defendants, the name of the plaintiff has been continuing in the revenue records and he has been in occupation and raising crop in the said land. 3.2. While things stood thus, in the year 2008, the plaintiff came to know that defendants, in collusion with revenue authorities, got mutated the name of defendant No.1 in the revenue records in respect of Acs.2.24 gts in the year 2004 without notice to him; that immediately, he filed an application for rectification of the said wrong entries before the Tahsildar, Sangam; that the revenue authorities rectified the wrong revenue entries partly i.e., entries in respect of land admeasuring Ac.1.24 gts was deleted out of Acs.2.24 gts, but did not delete the entries in respect of land admeasuring Ac.1.00; that aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff preferred an Appeal before Joint Collector vide Appeal No.6987/2009 to rectify the said wrong entry and also for cancellation of Pattedar Pass Book in favour of defendant No.1 and the said Appeal is pending. Hence the suit. 4. Defendants entered appearance in the suit and during the pendency of the suit, they filed application to reject the plaint vide I.A.No.499 of 2022 under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of C.P.C.. Hence the suit. 4. Defendants entered appearance in the suit and during the pendency of the suit, they filed application to reject the plaint vide I.A.No.499 of 2022 under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of C.P.C.. In the affidavit, filed in support of the application, it is averred that there is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit and the same is barred by limitation, therefore, the suit ought not to have been numbered, and should have been rejected at the time of scrutiny; that though the sale deed was executed in the year 2001, the plaintiff, who allegedly came to know about the mutation in the year 2008, filed the suit in the year 2012, which is hopelessly barred by limitation in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, wherein it is held that when the plaint is beyond the limitation and lacks cause of action, the same must be rejected and clever drafting of plaint by using word ‘fraud’ cannot bring the suit within the period of limitation, and thus, prayed to reject the plaint. 5. Plaintiff filed counter resisting the said application and averred that he executed sale deed on pressure of Ex-Member of Parliament, who is a near relative of him, with an understanding that they will re-convey the schedule property after getting permission from AICTE and when plaintiff expressed his doubt about re-conveyance, defendant No.2, executed agreement on the same day that the sale deed executed was nominal without delivery of possession and defendant No.2 would re-convey the same in favour of the plaintiff after getting permission from the AICTE. But, the defendants did not re-convey the schedule property in favour of the plaintiff despite repeated requests, therefore, plaintiff was constrained to file the suit. It was further averred that defendants played fraud and got mutated their names in the revenue records in respect of entire extent of land and that the said application was filed after closing of the evidence of plaintiff and hence, the same is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 6. It was further averred that defendants played fraud and got mutated their names in the revenue records in respect of entire extent of land and that the said application was filed after closing of the evidence of plaintiff and hence, the same is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 6. The trial Court vide order dated 23.01.2023 allowed the application filed by the defendants for rejection of the plaint, with an observation that plaintiff had knowledge about the entries in the revenue records in the year 2008, however, suit was filed in the year 2012, which is otherwise barred by limitation of three years and further observed that plaintiff by clever drafting had created illusionary cause of action and filed the suit, which is barred by law of limitation. 7. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff preferred first Appeal vide A.S.No.10 of 2023 before the I Additional District Judge, Warangal and the first Appellate Court, vide order dated 08.09.2023 allowed the Appeal by setting aside the order passed by the trial Court, by observing as hereunder:- “…The trial Court applied the Section 17 of the Limitation Act, under which suit is to be filed within a period of one year when there is a fraud played by the other party. The present suit is not basing on only a question of law. The allegations of fraud, misrepresentation etc., are to be decided after full fledged trial. The documents under Exs.A1 and A2 are to be proved after full fledged trial only. When the question of limitation is connected with the merits of the case the matter requires to be decided along with other issue. In the cause of action para also the plaintiff clearly stated the dates by mentioning the cause of action as such, the plaint does not disclose the cause of action is not tenable…. … the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, is such they are to be established by adducing necessary evidence and can be decided after full fledged trial only. The trial Court without appreciating the averments of the plaint and the time spent by the plaintiff before revenue authorities till the year 2010 concluded that from the year 2008 onwards within a period of one year the suit has to be filed by applying Section 17 of the Limitation Act. The trial Court without appreciating the averments of the plaint and the time spent by the plaintiff before revenue authorities till the year 2010 concluded that from the year 2008 onwards within a period of one year the suit has to be filed by applying Section 17 of the Limitation Act. The trial Court erred in concluding the matter by applying Section 17 of Limitation Act and the rejection of plaint by ignoring the averments in the plaint on the ground that it is barred by limitation definite not sustain. As such the impugned order passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside...” 8. Aggrieved by the said order dated 08.09.2023 of the first Appellate Court, the defendants preferred the present Second Appeal. 9. Heard Sri H.Venugopal, learned senior counsel, appearing for Sri Nalla Mukund Reddy, learned counsel on record for the appellants and Sri J.Prabhakar, learned senior counsel, appearing for Sri A.Prabhakar, Rao, learned counsel on record for the respondent. Perused the entire material available on record. 10. Learned senior counsel for the appellants contended that as per Section 17 of Limitation Act, the period of limitation shall begin to run from the date on which the plaintiff or applicant, with reasonable diligence, has discovered the fraud or the mistake. In the case on hand, it is the specific case of the plaintiff that he came to know about the wrong entries in the revenue records in the year 2008, however, the suit is filed in the year 2012, i.e., after a lapse of four years and as such, the trial Court has rightly rejected the plaint, however, the first Appellate Court committed error in setting aside the order passed by the trial Court. Learned senior counsel further contended that the findings of the first Appellate Court that Section 17 of Limitation Act has no application, is erroneous; and that, even according to Section 59 of Limitation Act, limitation for filing suit is three years and hence, the suit filed in the year 2012 is clearly barred by limitation, therefore, the first Appellate Court committed error in holding that the suit is within limitation, which is unsustainable. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that application for rejection of plaint can be filed at any stage of suit. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that application for rejection of plaint can be filed at any stage of suit. Therefore, the observation of the first Appellate Court that application for rejection of plaint has to be filed at threshold and not after commencement of trial, is erroneous and contrary to settled principle of law. Learned Senior Counsel has extensively referred to the averments made in the plaint, particularly, the cause of action mentioned in the plaint and also the limitation and submitted that the Sale Deed was executed in the year 2001 and as per the plaintiff’s own admission, he came to know about the mutation of revenue records in the year 2008, but the suit was filed in the year 2012 and as such, the suit is clearly barred by limitation. Hence, the trial Court had rightly allowed the application, whereas the first Appellate Court allowed the Appeal by setting aside the order of the trial Court on erroneous interpretation of facts and law, particularly, Section 17 of Limitation Act. 11. In support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel for appellants relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court: 1. Khatri Kotels Private Limited and Another Vs. Union of India and another , 2011 (9) SCC 126 ; 2. Dahiben Vs. Arvindhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra), 2020 (7) SCC 366 ; 3. Canara Bank Vs. P.Selathal and others , 2020 (13) SCC 143 4. Rajpal Singh Vs. Saroj and another, 2022 (15)SCC 260 12. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff contended that Section 17 of the Limitation Act has no application to the facts of the case; that plaintiff sought two reliefs, i.e., one is for cancellation of registered sale deed bearing document No.234/2001, dated 14.05.2001 and another is for perpetual injunction in respect of the schedule property. He further contended that even for the sake of argument, if it is assumed that plaintiff is not entitled for cancellation of registered sale deed, he is entitled for perpetual injunction, therefore, plaint cannot be rejected partially. He further contended that even for the sake of argument, if it is assumed that plaintiff is not entitled for cancellation of registered sale deed, he is entitled for perpetual injunction, therefore, plaint cannot be rejected partially. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that sale deed bearing document No.234/2001, dated 14.05.2001, was executed with a clear understanding that the defendants would re-convey the schedule property after obtaining permission from AICTE and an Undertaking to that effect was also executed on the same day, wherein defendants have categorically stated that no title or right is conferred on them and sale consideration was not paid to the plaintiff. Therefore, trial Court committed error in allowing the application without considering the facts and circumstances of the case, whereas, the first Appellate Court had rightly set-aside the order passed by the trial Court. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that plaintiff was pursuing remedy before the Revenue Authorities and the time spent in pursuing remedy before the Revenue Authorities has to be excluded while calculating limitation. Therefore, the contention of the defendants that the suit is barred by limitation and that no cause of action arises is untenable and thus, prayed to dismiss the Second Appeal. 13. A perusal of record would disclose that plaintiff filed the suit for cancellation of the registered sale deed bearing document No.234/2001, dated 14.05.2001 and also for perpetual injunction in respect of the schedule property. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that sale deed vide document bearing No.234/2001, dated 14.05.2001, was executed nominally, on pressure of defendant No.2, only for the purpose of getting permission from AICTE and on clear understanding that defendants would execute cancellation of sale deed as and when demanded by the plaintiff. It is the further case of the plaintiff that an undertaking was executed by the defendants on the same day of execution of sale deed, wherein they admitted that no right or title was conferred on them and no consideration was paid to the plaintiff and they would execute the cancellation of sale deed after obtaining permission from AICTE. It is the further case of the plaintiff that an undertaking was executed by the defendants on the same day of execution of sale deed, wherein they admitted that no right or title was conferred on them and no consideration was paid to the plaintiff and they would execute the cancellation of sale deed after obtaining permission from AICTE. As per contention of plaintiff, he came to know about the mutation of name of the defendants in revenue records in respect of the schedule property in the year 2008 and immediately filed an application for rectification before the Tahsildar for rectifying the entries, but the entries in respect of Ac.1.24 gts were only rectified, and the entries in respect of Ac.1.00 guntas were un-rectified. Therefore, an appeal was filed before the Joint Collector in the year 2009 and the same was pending and thus, suit was filed in the year 2012. In the plaint, it was mentioned that cause of action arose in the year 2010, when the Tahsildar submitted remarks to the Joint Collector on 04.12.2010. 14. It is relevant to note that plaintiff sought for cancellation of sale deed document No.234/2001, dated 14.05.2001 not only on the ground that the same is nominal, but also on the ground that the same was obtained by fraud and mis-representation. Apart from the said relief, plaintiff also sought for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of schedule property. It is well settled law that cause of action is mixed question of facts and law and further, the aspect of fraud and mis-representation can be decided only after full-fledged trial. 15. In the present case, it is the specific case of the plaintiff that the defendant had obtained sale deed under coercion and by playing fraud and misrepresentation and further, no sale consideration has been paid to him. 16. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that plaintiff filed the suit seeking two reliefs i.e., 1) for cancellation of sale deed dated 14.05.2001 and 2) for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. 16. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that plaintiff filed the suit seeking two reliefs i.e., 1) for cancellation of sale deed dated 14.05.2001 and 2) for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. He would further submit that as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dahiben’s (supra), though a suit for cancellation of sale deed is not maintainable on the ground of non-payment of sale consideration, however, the specific case of plaintiff is that sale deed has been obtained by coercion and by playing fraud apart from non-payment of sale consideration. 17. With regard to the context that there cannot be a partial rejection of plaint, it is trite to refer to the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Central Bank of India and another vs. Smt. Prabha Jain and Others , 2025 SCC Online SC 121 , wherein it is observed as hereunder:-. “24. Even if we would have been persuaded to take the view that the third relief is barred by Section 17(3) of the SARFAESI Act, still the plaint must survive because there cannot be a partial rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of CPC. Hence, even if one relief survives, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC. In the case on hand, the first and second reliefs as prayed for are clearly not barred by Section 34 of the SARAFAESI ACT and are within the civil Court’s jurisdiction. Hence, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC. 18. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Central Bank of India’s case (cited supra), it is clear that there cannot be partial rejection of plaint, even if one of the reliefs claimed in the suit survives. Further, the plaintiff is seeking cancellation of sale deed not only on the ground of non-payment of sale consideration, but also on the ground of coercion and fraud, which can be decided only after full-fledged trial. 19. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and for foregoing reasons and in the light of the legal position, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 20. Accordingly, this Second Appeal is dismissed. 19. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and for foregoing reasons and in the light of the legal position, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 20. Accordingly, this Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.