SURESH KUMAR DAGLA versus SARWAN & ANR.

Citation: [2014] 7 S.C.R. 1105 · Decided: 26-08-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2014) 7 S.C.R. 1105 
SURESH KUMAR DAGLA 
v. 
SARWAN & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6363 OF 2014) 
AUGUST 26, 2014 
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND · 
S. A. BOBDE, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Suit for declaration: Limitation - Delay of 14 years in filing 
suit - Suit for declaration of title and for declaration that the C 
sale deed dated 30th November, 1992 was null and void filed 
by first respondent on 28th June, 2006 - First respondent had 
already instituted a complaint of cheating regarding purchase 
of suit land which was rejected on 30th November 1993 -
Held: Suit is barred by limitation as first respondent had D 
knowledge about the sale deed as back as in the month of 
1993 - Also, first respondent cannot derive benefit in terms 
of s. 257 of Chhatisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 -
Application by appellant u/Or. 7 r. 11 rlw s. 151 allowed - Suit 
dismissed. 
E 
On 30th November, 1992, the first respondent 
executed a registered sale deed in favour of the appellant · · 
and his father in respect of certain land and received the 
consideration. Subsequently, the first respondent filed a 
complaint before the District Judge against the appel,lant 
F 
alleging that the appellant had cheated him regarding the 
purchase of the suit land. The complaint was found to be 
false and dismissed on 30th November, 1993. After 14 
years, on 28th June, 2006, the first respondent flied a suit 
against the appellant and his father seeking declaration 
G 
of title and for declaring the sale deed dated 30th 
November, 1992 as null and void. The first respondent 
1105 
H 
1106 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 7 S.C.R. 
A also filed application for condonation of delay which "'.'as 
dismissed. 
The appellant filed applications under Order 7 Rule 
11 r/w section 151, CPC and under section 257 of the 
8 Chhatisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 raising objections 
as to maintainability of the suit on the ground of limitation. 
The trial court dismissed the applications which decision 
was upheld by the High Court. The instant appeal was 
fil~d challenging the order of the High Court. 
C 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: As per paragraph 4 of the copy of the plaint, 
the case of the first respondent was that the appellant has 
succeeded in registration of the sale deed in favour of 
0 himself by inducing the first respondent to believe that 
he will be executing the sale deed in favour of the State 
and the State will pay the consideration which is not paid 
till filing of the civil suit and has not taken possession. 
Therein at paragraph 17 it was stated that cause of action 
E arose in the month of August, 2006. The High Court 
noticed that paragraph 17 of the plain was cryptic but 
observed that it would not be possible for the Court to 
infer that the first respondent was h.aving knowledge 
about the alleged deed prior to August, 2006. The first 
respondent did not dispute the fact that he had already 
F instituted a case alleging therein that the appellant inter 
alia cheated him while purchasing the said land which 
was rejected on 30th September, 1993. From th~ said 
fact, it is clear that the first respondent had knowledge 
about the sale deed and as back as in the month of 
G September, 1993. Therefore, the suit is barred by 
limitation and thereby first respondent cannot derive any 
benefit in terms of Section 257 of the Chhattisgarh Land 
Revenue Code, 1959. The application filed by the 
appellant under order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of 
H 
SU RESH KUMAR DAG LA v. SARWAN 
1107 
the CPC is allowed and the suit is dismissed as barred 
A 
lby limitation. [Paras 8 to 11] [1109-F-H; 1110-A-D] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
6363 of 2014. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.09.2012 of the 
B 
High Court of Chattisgarh at Bilaspur, in Civil Revision ·No. 120 
of 2012 
· Ravindra Shrivastava, Kunal Verma for the Appellant. 
Vikrant Singh Sais, Yogesh Tiwari for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 1. This appeal 
G 
has been preferred by the appellant-defendant no.1 against the 
D 
order dated 12th September, 2012 passed by the High Court 
of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in Civil Revision No.120 of 2012. By 
the impugned order, the High Court upheld the Trial Court's 
order dated 23rd June, 2012 refusing to allow the application 
filed by the appellant under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 
E 
151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as, 
"the CPC") for dis
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.