N.V. SRINIVASA MURTHY AND ORS. versus MARIYAMMA (DEAD) BY PROPOSED LRS. AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 411 · Decided: 11-07-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.M. DHARMADHIKARI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

-r 
N.V. SRINIVASA MURTHY AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
MARIY AMMA (DEAD) BY PROPOSED LRS. AND ORS. 
JULY 11, 2005 
[D.M. DHARMADHIKARI AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure, I 908: 
Order VII, Rule I I rlw Order JI, Rule 2-Rejection of plaint-Suit for 
declaration of title and permanent injunction filed in 1996-Basis of the claim C 
being a sale deed of the year I 9 5 3 with oral agreement for reconveyance of 
the property on repayment of loan amount-Receipt of entire loan amount 
having been paid obtained on 25.3.1987-Earlier suit for permanent injunction 
filed in 1990 still pending-Held, plaint liable to be rejected on ground covered 
by clause (d) of r. I I of Order VII as barred by law of limitation as also 
barred by provisions of Specific Relief Act and under Order II r.2-Specific D 
Relief Act. 
· 
Vexatious Litigation-Exemplary costs-Imposing of 
Appellants filed a suit for declaration that they were the absolute 
owners of the suit lands and claimed permanent injunction restraining E 
defendants from wrongfully entering the suit property. The suit was filed 
in the year 1996 and the cause of action was said to have arisen when the 
Assistant Commissioner, by order dated 28.4.1994, confirmed the orders 
of the authorities below directing mutation of the names of the defendants 
on suit lands and again in July 1995 when defendants were alleged to have 
attempted to interfere with the plaintiffs' possession. It was, inter alia, F 
averred in the plaint that the plaintiffs' father executed on 5.5.1953 a 
registered sale deed in favour of the predecessor~in-title of the defendants, 
against a loan amount, with a contemporaneous oral agreement that on 
return of the borrowed sum a registered reconveyance deed would be 
executed in favour of the borrower; that on re-payment of the entire loan G 
amount a receipt was ob!ained on 25.3.1987 from defendants who orally 
promised to execute a reconveyance deed in favour of the plaintiffs; that 
the plaintiffs had earlir also filed a suit seeking permanent injunction 
against the defendants and that suit was still pending; that the defendants 
manipulated the revenue records and got their names mutated over the 
411 
H 
412 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A suit land. The trial court dismissed the suit as barred by limitation. 
B 
However, the High Court ultimately rejected the plaint under Order VII, 
Rule 11 on the ground that it disclosed no cause of action. Aggrieved, the 
plaintiffs filed the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The plaint was rightly held to be liable to rejection if 
not on the alleged ground of non-disclosure of any cause of action but on 
the ground covered by clause ( d) of Rule 11 of Order VII of Code of Civil 
Procedure, 1908, namely, that 'the suit appears from the statement in the 
C plaint to be clearly. barred by law'. Besides, the suit is also barred by the 
provisions of Specific Relief Act as also under Order II, Rule 2 CPC. 
(413-G, H; 417-BI 
D 
1.2. On the averments in the plaint, the foundation of the suit is 
clearly the registered instrument dated 5.5.1953; and the relief of declaring 
the said document dated 5.5.1953 to be a loan transaction and second relief 
of specific performance of oral agreement of· re-conveyance of the property 
by registered instrument should and ought to have been claimed in the 
suit. A suit merely for declaration that the plaintiffs are absolute owners 
of the suit lands could not have been filed without seekiitg declaration that 
the registered sale deed dated 5.5.1953 was a loan transaction and not a 
E real sale. The cause of action for seeking su.ch a declaration and for 
obtaining re-conveyance deed, according to the plaintiff's own averments 
in the plaint, arose on 25.3.1987 when the plaintiffs claimed to have paid 
back the entire loan amount and obtained a promise from the defendants 
to reconvey the property. Reckoning the cause,of action from 25.3.1987, 
the suit filed on 26.8.1996, was hopelessly barred by time. The averments 
F in the plaint concerning the mutation proceedings before the revenue 
authorities and the orders passed by Tehsildar/Assistant Commissioner 
did not furnish any independent or fresh cause of action for the suit and 
they appear to have been made as a camouflage to get over the bar of 
limitation. [415-G-H; 416-B] 
G 
2. Whatever relief the petitioners desired to claim from the civil court 
on the basis of averment with reg

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