WWW - Livelaw.In: Signature Not Verified
WWW - Livelaw.In: Signature Not Verified
WWW - Livelaw.In: Signature Not Verified
IN
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DAHIBEN … Appellant
versus
ARVINDBHAI KALYANJI BHANUSALI
(GAJRA)(D) THR LRS & ORS. … Respondents
JUDGMENT
INDU MALHOTRA, J.
Order VII Rule 11(d), CPC holding that the suit filed by the
Digitally signed by
1
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
8701 sq. mtrs. in Revenue Survey No. 610, Block No.573 situated
Plaintiffs.
property, and fixed the sale price of the suit property as per the
jantri issued by the State Government @ Rs. 2000/- per sq. mtr.,
2
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
favour of the Plaintiffs, the details of which were set out in the
defendants. It was inter alia prayed that the Sale Deed dated
ineffective and not binding on them, on the ground that the sale
by Respondent No. 1.
were not able to read and write, and were only able to put their
3
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
Respondent No.1 had paid only Rs. 40,000 through 6 cheques, and
02.07.2009, and also prayed that the subsequent Sale Deed dated
Plaintiffs.
the Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the CPC,
plaint.
It was inter alia submitted that the Plaintiffs had admitted the
now sought to be raised was that they had not received a part of
4
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
02.07.2009 was being challenged, then the suit ought to have been
Section 135D of the Land Revenue Code had been duly served on
the Plaintiffs, and ever since, Respondent No. 1 had been paying
the land revenue on the suit property, and taking the produce
therefrom.
the title, and inspecting the revenue records. The Respondent No.1
had sold the suit property vide a registered Sale Deed dated
records.
5
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
the suit was devoid of any merit, and clearly time-barred, and
liable to be rejected.
from the averments in the plaint was that the suit property was of
Since the Plaintiffs were in dire need of money, and wanted to sell
fact paid only Rs. 40,000/-, and false cheques of Rs. 1,73,62,000/-
6
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
[marked as Exhibit 3/9] it was noted that the Plaintiffs had in fact
issued prior to the execution of the Sale Deed, during the period
07.07.2008 to 02.07.2009.
beginning.
The Trial Court noted that there was no averment in the plaint
that the cheques had not been received by them. Once the cheques
Court held that had the Plaintiffs not been able to encash 30
7
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
Officer.
The Trial Court held that the period of limitation for filing the
suit was 3 years from the date of execution of the Sale Deed dated
as per the averments in the plaint had arisen when the Defendant
Plaintiffs in 2009. The suit for cancellation of the Sale Deed dated
8
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
The Trial Court, on the basis of the settled position in law, held
that the suit of the Plaintiffs was barred by limitation, and allowed
The Division Bench of the High Court took note of the fact that
the Plaintiffs did not deny having executed the registered Sale Deed
Plaintiffs that they had received the full sale consideration. The
execution of the Sale Deed was not disputed, and the conveyance
was duly registered in the presence of the Plaintiffs before the Sub-
or ineffective.
9
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
consideration.
The present suit for cancellation of the Sale Deed was filed by
the Sale Deed dated 02.07.2009, and 1 year after the execution of
Deed dated 02.07.2009. It was for the first time that such an
allegation was made after over 5 years from the date of execution
the view that the suit could not be permitted to be continued even
The High Court rightly affirmed the findings of the Trial Court,
and held that the suit was barred by limitation, since it was filed
10
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
12. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, perused
12.1 We will first briefly touch upon the law applicable for
11
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
12
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
following words :
adhered to.
12.3 Under Order VII Rule 11, a duty is cast on the Court to
2 Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I & Anr., (2004) 9 SCC 512.
13
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
of the plaint.
made out.
14
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
12.7 The test for exercising the power under Order VII Rule
was laid down in Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v.
15
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
the Court finds that the plaint does not disclose a cause of
action, or that the suit is barred by any law, the Court has
6 D. Ramachandran v. R.V. Janakiraman, (1999) 3 SCC 267; See also Vijay Pratap Singh v.
Dukh Haran Nath Singh, AIR 1962 SC 941.
7 (2003) 1 SCC 557.
16
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
which are necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to entitle him
Court held :
words : -
17
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
Tribunal,10 this Court held that law cannot permit clever drafting
in the bud, so that bogus litigation will end at the earliest stage.
18
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
any specific article, then it would fall within the residuary article.
of the 1963 Act is three years, which commences from the date
In Khatri Hotels Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.,12 this
Court held that the use of the word ‘first’ between the words ‘sue’
causes of action, the period of limitation will begin to run from the
19
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
date when the right to sue first accrues. That is, if there are
beyond the period of limitation counted from the date when the
Gurdev Singh,13 held that the Court must examine the plaint and
determine when the right to sue first accrued to the plaintiff, and
whether on the assumed facts, the plaint is within time. The words
action arises. The suit must be instituted when the right asserted
suit is instituted.
Order VII Rule 11(d) provides that where a suit appears from
the averments in the plaint to be barred by any law, the plaint shall
be rejected.
13 (1991) 4 SCC 1.
20
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
unpaid.
21
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
(4) We the party of Second part i.e. Vendors of the sale deed
since received full consideration on the above facts, the
physical possession, occupancy of the land or the property
mentioned in this sale deed has been handed over to you
the Vendee of this sale deed, and that has been occupied
and taken in possession of the land or property mentioned
in this sale deed by you the Vendee of this sale deed by
coming at the site and therefore, we the Vendors of this sale
deed have not to raise any dispute in the future that the
possession of the land or the property has not been handed
over to you. …”
(emphasis supplied)
07.07.2008 to 02.07.2009.
22
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
for recovery of the amount, till the filing of the present suit
in December 2014.
this ground.
provides as under :
23
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
not a sine qua non for completion of the sale. Even if the
sale price would not affect the validity of the sale. Once the
24
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
the recitals of the sale deed, the conduct of the parties, and
15.4 The Plaintiffs have averred in the plaint that the period
by Defendant No.1.
25
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
“(7) … Not only that but also, on obtaining the copy of the
index of the sale deed of the acts committed by the
Opponent No.1, 4, 5 and on obtaining the certified copy of
the sale deed, we the plaintiffs could come to know on 21-
11-2014 that, the Opponent No.1 had in collusion with
Opponent No.4, 5 mentioned the false cheques stated below
in the so called sale deed with intention to commit fraud and
no any consents of we the plaintiffs have also been obtained
in that regard. The said cheques have not been received to
we the plaintiffs or no any amounts of the said cheques
have been credited in accounts of we the plaintiffs. Thus,
the cheques which have been mentioned in the agreement
caused to have been executed by the Opponent No.1, the
false cheques have been mentioned of the said amounts.
Not only that but also, the agricultural land under the suit
had been sold by the Opponent No.1 to the Opponent No.2
Dillipbhai Gordhanbhai Sonani and the Opponent No.3,
Laljibhai Gordhanbhai Sonani on 1-4-2013 for
Rs.2,01,00,000/- as if the said sale deed was having clear
title deeds. On taking out the copy of the said sale deed with
seal and signature on 21-11-2014, it could come to the
knowledge of we the plaintiffs. We the plaintiffs have not
done any signature or witness on the said agreement. The
said agreement is not binding to we the plaintiffs. Since the
said agreement is since null, void and invalid as well as
illegal, therefore, no any Court fee stamp duty is required to
be paid by we the plaintiff on the said agreement and for
that we the plaintiffs rely upon the judgment of the Supreme
Court in A.I.R.2010, Supreme Court, Page No. 2807. …”
(emphasis supplied)
would not constitute the cause of action for filing the suit.
26
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
truth.
suit property.
states that :
27
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
period of limitation.
28
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
15.8 The delay of over 5 and ½ years after the alleged cause
proof that the suit was filed within the period of limitation.
29
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
Order VII Rule 11, the prayer with respect to the 2nd Sale
The Trial Court has rightly exercised the power under Order
30
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
...…...............………………J.
(L. NAGESWARA RAO)
...…...............………………J.
(INDU MALHOTRA)
July 09, 2020;
New Delhi.
31