LexDALIBEN VALJIBHAI & ORS. versus PRAJAPATI KODARBHAI KACHRABHAI & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 2123 : 2024 INSC 1049 Daliben Valjibhai & Ors. v. Prajapati Kodarbhai Kachrabhai & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 14293 of 2024 ) 11 December 2024 [Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Manoj Misra, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether a suit for cancellation of a registered sale deed, filed within three years from the date of knowledge as alleged in the plaint, can be dismissed at the threshold under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on the ground that it is barred by limitation. Headnotes† Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (“CPC”) – Order 7 Rule 11 – In 2017, appellants/ plaintiffs filed a suit for cancellation of alleged registered sale deed dated 04.12.2004 on grounds of fraud – Trial Court dismissed suit under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the ground of limitation – First Appellate Court reversed the decision – In second appeal, High Court reinstated Trial Court’s decision – Order challenged – Appeal allowed – High Court not justified in allowing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 on issues not evident from the plaint averments – High Court has drawn inferences that were only possible after a trial – Judgment of First Appellate Court restored – Trial Court to take up suit and dispose it of as expeditiously as possible: Held: In 2017, appellants/plaintiffs instituted a suit for cancellation of alleged registered sale deed dated 04.12.2004 conveying the plaint scheduled property in favour of the respondents/ defendants – It was alleged that sale deed was fraudulently obtained and the appellants/plaintiffs came to know of it only on 31.03.2017, when the Deputy Collector issued notice on defendant’s application for correcting revenue entries – Respondents/defendants filed application for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC claiming that suit was barred by 2124 [2024] 12 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports limitation – Trial Court allowed application under Order 7 Rule 11 and dismissed suit as barred by limitation – First Appellate Court reversed the decision holding that limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, and plaintiffs had alleged they became aware of the fraud only in 2017 – Only relevant material for disposing application under Order 7 Rule 11 are facts mentioned in the plaint, not defendants’ contentions – The High Court vide impugned order reinstated Trial Court’s decision holding that the suit was barred by limitation and the plaint did not include essential particulars of alleged fraud – Appeal against impugned order allowed – Held, High Court drew inferences possible only after trial even while recording the principle that operation and impact of Order 7 Rule 11, being a drastic remedy, Courts must adhere to the discipline of confining their scrutiny to the plaint averments – High Court carried away by the fact that the suit was filed 13 years after the execution of sale deed – No justification for allowing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 on issues that were not evident from the plaint averments. Reliance placed on P.V. Guru Raj Reddy v. P. Neeradha Reddy – Only if the averments in plaint ex facie do not disclose a cause of action or on a reading thereof the suit appears to be barred under any law the plaint can be rejected – At the stage of consideration of the application under Order 7 Rule 11, the stand of the defendants in the written statement would be altogether irrelevant. [Paras 2-9, 11] Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 59 – Registration Act, 1908 – High Court in impugned order held that once a document is registered under the Registration Act, the date of registration becomes the date of deemed knowledge – Held, High Court not justified in holding that the limitation period commences from the date of registration itself – Limitation will arise from date of knowledge: Held: High Court correctly concluded that under Article 59, Limitation Act, a suit can be instituted within 3 years of the knowledge – However, it found knowledge must be presumed from date of registration under Registration Act – High Court not justified in holding that the limitation period commences from date of registration itself – Reliance placed on Chhotanben v. Kirtibhai [2024] 12 S.C.R. 2125 Daliben Valjibhai & Ors. v. Prajapati Kodarbhai Kachrabhai & Anr. Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar – Held that limitation in such cases will arise from date of knowledge. [Paras 10, 12-13] Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – s.100 – Reversal of the judgment
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.