1 & 2 herein at any point of time, has not been considered, therefore, the lower appellate Court has committed a material irregularity in not affirming the order of the trial Court rejecting the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is also borne out of record that Articles 56 & 58 of the Limitation Act have been pressed into service by the first appellant before the trial Court citing the plea of limitation for rejection of the plaint. Therefore, the lower appellate Court is required to read the pleadings in entirety along with the defence available with the evidence, the plea taken by them in the written statement and in the application filed under Order VII, Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Equally when the District Registrar, Villupuram has already passed an order for registration of the sale deed vide order dated 29.5.2006, even in the suit filed by the respondents 1 & 2, the order passed by the District Registrar, Villupuram has not been questioned. When the order of the District Registrar, Villupuram dated 29.5.2006 was allowed to stand, the prayer in the suit for declaration of the sale deed dated 17.6.2005 as a false and invalid document and not binding upon the respondents 1 & 2, would be only a wasteful exercise. As a matter of fact, when the District Registrar, exercising his power under Section 73 of the Registration Act, had passed an order directing the registration of the document after hearing the parties and after being satisfied with its execution by the testator, the said order became final and concluded and the respondents 1 & 2 cannot have any grievance over its authenticity, when they chose to file the suit after a period of more than ten years with a false plea that they were unaware of the proceedings at all before the District Registrar, which is clearly hit by the law of limitation under Articles 56 & 58 that prescribe a period of three years from the date of knowledge of registration of the sale deed in question. In this context, useful reference can be had from the judgment of the Apex Court in Raghwendra Sharan Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead) by Lrs, 2020-2-L.W.889, holding that the question with regard to limitation is a mixed question of law and fact which can be decided only after the parties lead evidence, considering the averments in the plaint, if it is found that the suit is clearly barred by law of limitation, the same can be rejected in exercise of powers under Order VII, Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. In my considered opinion, in the case on hand, as the question of limitation has been the sole issue before the trial Court, the lower appellate Court, without adverting to the same, has committed a serious irregularity, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, answering the point no. (ii) also against the respondents 1 & 2 and in favour of the appellants, the impugned decretal order is set aside and the civil miscellaneous appeal stands allowed with costs of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) payable by the
