Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.VII r.11(d) – Rejection of plaint – Limitation Act, 1963 – s.17 – Respondents filed respective suits in the year 2015/2016 for cancellation of the sale deeds executed in 2005, alleging that the same were obtained by fraud – Appellant filed applications u/Or.VII r.11(d) for rejection of the plaints mainly on the ground that the suits were barred by limitation, dismissed – Revision petitions filed by appellant, dismissed by High Court – Held: Respective suits were filed after a period of 10 years from the date of execution of the registered sale deeds – Nothing was mentioned on which date and how the plaintiffs had the knowledge that the document was obtained by fraud and/or misrepresentation – There were no further averments and allegations of how the fraud was committed/played – Mere stating in the plaint that a fraud has been played is not enough – Allegations of fraud must be specifically averred in the plaint, otherwise merely by using the word “fraud”, by clever drafting the plaintiffs would try to get the suits within the limitation, which otherwise may be barred by limitation, as in the present case – Impugned judgment passed by the High Court and the orders passed by the Trial Court set aside – Respective suits are rejected being barred by limitation – Fraud.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Therefore, even considering the averments and allegations in the plaints only, it can be seen that even according to the plaintiffs, the cause of action for the suit arose on 19.09.2005, the date on which the plaintiffs executed the sale deed in favour of the defendant. Most of the cause of actions alleged are much prior to /prior to the execution of the registered Sale Deeds. Even the averments and allegations with respect to knowledge of the plaintiffs averred in paragraph 19 can be said to be too vague. Nothing has been mentioned on which date and how the plaintiffs had the knowledge that the document was obtained by fraud and/or misrepresentation. It is averred that the alleged fraudulent sale came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs only when the plaintiffs visited the suit property. Nothing has been mentioned when the plaintiffs visited the suit property. It is not understandable how on visiting the suit property, the plaintiffs could have known the contents of the sale deed and/or the knowledge about the alleged fraudulent sale. Even the averments and allegations in the plaint with respect to fraud are not supported by any further averments and allegations how the fraud has been committed/played. Mere stating in the plaint that a fraud has been played is not enough and the allegations of fraud must be specifically averred in the plaint, otherwise merely by using the word “fraud”, the plaintiffs would try to get the suits within the limitation, which otherwise may be barred by limitation. Therefore, even if the submission on behalf of the respondents – original plaintiffs that only the averments and allegations in the plaints are required to be considered at the time of deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is accepted, in that case also by such vague allegations with respect to the date of knowledge, the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to challenge the documents after a period of 10 years. By such a clever drafting and using the word “fraud”, the plaintiffs have tried to bring the suits within the period of limitation invoking Section 17 of the limitation Act. The plaintiffs cannot be permitted to bring the suits within the period of limitation by clever drafting, which otherwise is barred by limitation. [Paras 7.5-7.8][231-E-F; 232-B-H]
Raghwendra Sharan Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singh
(Dead) by Legal Representatives (2020) 16 SCC
601:[2019] 4 SCR 1069 – relied on.
1.2 Both the Courts below have materially erred in not rejecting the plaints in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. The respective suits have been filed after a period of
10 years from the date of execution of the registered sale deeds. It is to be noted that one suit was filed by the minor, which was filed in the year 2006, in which some of the plaintiffs herein were also party to the said suit and in the said suit, there was a specific reference to the Sale Deed dated 19.09.2005 and the said suit came to be dismissed in the year 2014 and immediately thereafter the present suits have been filed. Thus, from the averments in the plaint and the bundle of facts stated in the plaint, by clever drafting, the plaintiffs have tried to bring the suits within the period of limitation, which otherwise are barred by limitation. Therefore, considering the decisions of this Court in the case of T. Arivandandam and other decision of Raghwendra Sharan Singh and as the respective suits are barred by the law of limitation, the respective plaints are required to be rejected in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all these appeals succeed. The impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court rejecting the revision applications and the orders passed by the learned Trial Court rejecting the respective applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and refusing to reject the plaints in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC are hereby quashed and set aside. The respective applications filed by the appellant herein – original defendant to reject the respective plaints on the ground that the same are barred by the law of limitation are hereby allowed. The respective plaints are hereby rejected on the ground that the same are barred by limitation. [Paras 7.9, 8]
T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC 467 : 1978 (1) SCR 742 – relied on.
Sopan Sukhdeo Sable & Ors. v. Assistant Charity Commissioner & Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 137:[2004] 1 SCR 1004; Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat & Ors. (2021) 9 SCC 99; Ram Prakash Gupta v. Rajiv Kumar Gupta & Ors. (2007) 10 SCC 59:[2007]
10 SCR 520; Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society v. Ponniamman
Educational Trust (2012) 8 SCC 706:[2012] 6
SCR 404; Salim D. Agboatwala & Ors. v. Shamalji Oddhavji Thakkar & Ors. 2021 SCC Online SC 735 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.