Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order VII Rule 11(d) – Rejection of plaint – Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 58-60, 65 – Suit filed by the Respondent No.1-Plaintiff, if was barred by limitation and ought to have been rejected at the threshold: Held: Yes – The right to sue first accrued to the predecessors of the plaintiff when the properties were brought for sale by the court – Court auction was held in 1938 and sale deed was registered in 1952 in favour of the Defendant No.1-appellant in respect of the suit properties – However, the suit was filed only in the year 2008, though the plaintiff and his predecessors were aware of the existence of the said registered sale deed of the suit properties – Predecessors of the plaintiff never challenged the sale of property to the Defendant No.1 by court auction and the subsequent registration of the deeds, despite constructive notice, as they acceded to the title of the appellant, which cannot now be questioned by the plaintiff after such long time – Title claim of the plaintiff was thus, barred by limitation and therefore, the claim for possession was also barred and consequently, the relief of recovery of possession was also hopelessly barred by limitation – Plaintiff did not produce any documentary evidence to show that he is entitled for the relief of declaration of ownership of the suit properties except by relying on the government resolutions which lost its force in view of the decree of the Civil Court and subsequent compromise decrees – The alleged cause of action is a creation of fiction – Plaintiff was a stranger to the suit properties and the Defendants were the owners of the suit properties – The plea of fraud was raised only to overcome the period of limitation – Suit was hopelessly barred by limitation – Trial Court erroneously dismissed the application filed by the appellants u/Or.VII, r.11(d) – High Court erred in affirming the same – Though, limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and the question of rejecting the plaint thereon has to be decided after weighing the evidence on record however, in cases like the present one, where it is glaring from the plaint averments that the suit was hopelessly barred by limitation, the Courts should drive the parties back to the trial Court – Orders passed by Courts below set aside – Application filed by the appellants u/Or.VII, r.1(d) of CPC allowed, plaint rejected. [Paras 14, 19.1, 20, 23, 24, 26]
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s.3 – Interpretation clause – “a person is said to have notice” – Presumption u/s.3 – When comes into operation:
Held: A portion of the property was conveyed by court auction and registered in the first instance and another portion was conveyed by a registered sale deed in 1952 – Thus, there was a constructive notice from the date of registration and the presumption u/s.3 comes into operation – The possession also rested with the appellant before several decades, which operates as notice of title. [Para 16] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. XXIII, r.3A – Bar under, when applicable – Discussed.
Specific Relief Act, 1963 – s.31 – When cancellation may be ordered – Applicability – Discussed.
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.