SHRI MUKUND BHAVAN TRUST AND ORS. versus SHRIMANT CHHATRAPATI UDAYAN RAJE PRATAPSINH MAHARAJ BHONSLE AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1445 · Decided: 19-12-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.B. PARDIWALA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1445 : 2024 INSC 1025
Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust and Ors. 
v. 
Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj 
Bhonsle and Another
(Civil Appeal No. 14807 of 2024)
20 December 2024
[J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in affirming the order of the trial Court 
dismissing the application filed by the appellants under Order VII 
Rule 11(d), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for rejection of plaint 
being barred by limitation.
Headnotes†
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 
*Author
1446
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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.
Case Law Cited
T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal [1978] 1 SCR 742 : (1977) 4 
SCC 467 – held applicable.
Satti Paradesi Samadhi & Pillayar Temple v. M. Sankuntala [2014] 
9 SCR 221 : (2015) 5 SCC 674; Sajjan Sikaria v. Shakuntala Devi 
Mishra (2005) 13 SCC 687; Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra 
[2002] Supp. 5 SCR 491 : (2003) 1 SCC 557; Dahiben v. Arvindbhai 
Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) dead through legal representatives 
[2020] 5 SCR 694 : (2020) 7 SCC 366 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
1447
Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust and Ors. v. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan 
Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle and Another
562; Prem Singh v. Birbal [2006] Supp. 1 SCR 692 : (2006) 5 SCC 
353 : 2006 SCC OnLine SC 522; 

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