C.S. RAMASWAMY versus V. K. SENTHIL & ORS

Citation: [2022] 18 S.C.R. 221 · Decided: 30-09-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
221
C.S. RAMASWAMY
v.
V. K. SENTHIL & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 500 of 2022)
SEPTEMBER 30, 2022
[M.R. SHAH AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
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
   [2022] 18 S.C.R. 221
221
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
222
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
223
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
re

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.