Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.VII, R.11(d) – Limitation Act, 1963 – Art.59 – On 05.05.1974, appellant herein was assigned a vacant site by the special tahsildar – He executed a power of attorney (registered on 06.01.1978) in favour of his father for purpose of construction – Contrary to which, father of appellant executed a sale deed on 10.10.1988 in favour of second respondent/defendant no.1/grand daughter – On coming to know of the same, the appellant filed a complaint on 09.12.2011 under land grabbing cell against family of defendant no.1 – Thereafter, in 2014 appellant instituted a suit to seek declaration and other consequential reliefs – Respondents/defendants filed an application u/Or.VII, R.11 CPC and sought rejection of plaint on the ground that it was undervalued and was barred by limitation – Application was dismissed by the trial Court – However, the High Court allowed the civil revision petition and held that suit was barred by limitation – Correctness: Held: It is well-settled that Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, governs suits seeking cancellation of an instrument and prescribes a period of limitation of three years from the date when the plaintiff first had knowledge of the facts entitling him to such relief – The emphasis under Article 59 is not on the date of the transaction per se, but on the accrual of the cause of action, which, in cases involving allegations of fraud or unauthorized execution of documents, hinges upon the date on which the plaintiff acquired knowledge of such facts – In the instant case, appellant specifically averred in the plaint that upon becoming aware of registration of documents, he immediately lodged a land grabbing complaint on 09.12.2011 – On the other hand, the respondents/defendants stated in their application filed u/Or.VII R.11 CPC that the appellant had knowledge of the execution of the sale deed by his father in favour of defendant No.1 at the earliest point of time and hence, the suit instituted by the appellant was barred by limitation – The issue as to whether the appellant had prior notice or reason to be aware of the transaction at an earlier point of time, or whether the plea regarding the date of knowledge is credible, are matters that necessarily require appreciation of evidence – At this preliminary stage, the averments made in the plaint must be taken at their face value and assumed to be true – Once the date of knowledge is specifically pleaded and forms the basis of the cause of action, the issue of limitation cannot be decided summarily – It becomes a mixed question of law and fact, which cannot be adjudicated at the threshold stage u/Or.VII R.11 CPC – Therefore, rejection of the plaint on the ground of limitation without permitting the parties to lead evidence, is legally unsustainable. [Paras 11, 12, 12.1]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. 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.