Gujarat High Court
Manibhai Asharam Shah vs Ranchodbhai Cheetabhai … on 17 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/182/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 182 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
MANIBHAI ASHARAM SHAH
Versus
RANCHODBHAI CHEETABHAI PATEL(DEC.)THROUGH LEGAL HERIS &
ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SP MAJMUDAR(3456) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES
for the Opponent(s) No. 1,1.1
MR DHARMENDRA PARIKH(2389) for the Opponent(s) No. 1.1.1,1.1.2,2,3,4
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s) No. 5,6,7
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Date : 17/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present Revision Application has been filed challenging the
order dated 20.03.2013 passed by 6th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate
and Additional Senior Civil Judge Vadodara below Exh.16 in Regular
Civil Suit No.682 of 2011 whereby the application Exh.16 filed under the
under the provisions of Order VII Rule of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 has been rejected.
2. For the sake of brevity, parties are referred to as per their original
status before the trial Court.
Page 1 of 21
Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:14:29 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/182/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
FACTS OF THE CASE:
3.1 The brief facts arising in the present application are that the
plaintiff has filed the civil suit on the ground that, deceased plaintiff
nos.1, 2 and 3 are sisters of defendant nos.1, 2 and 3 and it is the case of
plaintiff that the suit property belonged to father of the plaintiffs and
defendant no.1 to 3 viz. Ranchhodbhai Patel and plaintiff no.1 got
married on 18.05.1953, plaintiff no.2 got married on 05.06.1995, plaintiff
no.3 got married on 19.04.1980 and plaintiff no.4 got married on
06.03.1998. It is the case of the plaintiff that since the date of marriage of
plaintiffs were residing in their respective in-laws house and are not
aware of any transaction with respect to suit property.
3.2 It is the case of the plaintiff that fraudulent revenue entry has been
created with respect to suit property and that the suit property has been
wrongly sold on 25.03.1985 and, therefore, plaintiff has filed suit
challenging the sale-deed and for injunction with respect to the suit
property. It is the case of the plaintiff that it is only when search report
with respect to the suit property was taken the plaintiff came to know
about the suit transaction and, therefore, plaintiff has filed the suit.
3.3 The defendant no.4 appeared in the said suit and filed application
vide Exh.16 under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. The
trial Court rejected the said application and hence the present Revision
Application.
SUBMISSION OF THE DEFENDANT – PETITIONER :
4.1 Learned advocate for the defendant no.4 has mainly argued that the
Page 2 of 21
Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:14:29 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/182/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
suit is hopelessly time barred. The plaintiffs are claiming right in the suit
property and the plaintiff has challenged the sale-deed dated 25.03.1985
and the said sale-deed has been challenged in the year 2011. Moreover,
thereafter also the defendant no.4 has further sold the suit property by
way of registered sale-deed dated 07.07.2009, 14.06.2010 and 14.06.2010
and, therefore, it is the case of the plaintiff that though fraud has been
stated to have been alleged on the plaintiff, no particulars of fraud has
been stated in the plaint and therefore also plaint is required to be
rejected.
4.2 Learned advocate for the defendant has mainly argued that suit that
has been filed by plaintiff is hopelessly time barred as the fact that the
sale-deeds under challenge are registered documents and, therefore, it is
deemed knowledge and it has also been argued that defendant nos.1, 2
and 3 were real owners of the property and they have executed sale-deed
in favour of defendant no.4 and the said deeds could not have been
challenged after period of 26 years and therefore also plaint is required to
be rejected.
4.3 Learned advocate for the defendant has also argued that suit that
has been filed by defendant nos.1 to 4 is through son of defendant no.3
and defendant no.2 is one of the sellers of the document dated 25.03.1985
and therefore it cannot be believed that plaintiff were not aware of the
suit transaction. It has been argued that the plaintiffs have filed the suit in
collusion with defendant nos.1, 2 and 3 and it is the case of the plaintiff
that defendant nos.1,2 and 3 had not informed about the fact of revenue
entries, but the fact remains that the son of defendant no.3 is a power of
Page 3 of 21
Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:14:29 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/182/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
attorney of plaintiff nos.1, 2 and 3 and, therefore, it has been argued that
present plaint is required to be rejected being barred by law.
5. Though served, none appeared for the respondents – original
plaintiffs.
6.1 Having heard learned advocate for the petitioner and having
considered the plaint and the order that has been passed by the trial Court,
fact remains that plaintiff are claiming right in the suit property, on the
ground that suit property belonged to their father and that fraudulent
revenue entry has been created by defendant no.1,2 and 3 and that
defendant nos.1, 2 and 3 have fraudulently executed sale-deed in favour
of defendant no.4 on 25.03.1985. It has been averred in the plaint that
plaintiffs were not at all aware about suit transaction in view of the fact
that plaintiffs were married and staying with in-laws and it is only on
11.06.2011, plaintiffs came to know about the said fact.
6.2 It has also been stated in the plaintiffs that time and again plaintiff
nos.1, 2 and 3 were inquiring about the suit transaction with defendant
nos.1, 2 and 3 were giving false and evasive reply but the fact remains
that power of attorney of plaintiff nos.1, 2 and 3 is son of defendant
nos.1, 2 and 3 and, therefore, it cannot be believed that plaintiffs were not
aware about the suit transaction.
6.3 It is important to note that sale-deed that has been executed by
defendant nos.1 to 3 is registered sale-deed and, therefore, the same is
deemed knowledge.
Page 4 of 21
Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:14:29 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/182/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
6.4 [R1 Para:50] It is important now to see what is the position of law
on ‘deemed knowledge’ of registered documents. Hon’ble Supreme Court
has time and again laid down the law relating to deemed knowledge,
cause of action and ultimately, limitation. It is necessary for me to
consider the said law before I proceed for a finding on that proposition.
6.5 Genesis of this doctrine or proposition seems to lay in the fact that
a person cannot after an indefinite period of time rise to challenge
everything or every document which has been executed while that person
was in a slumber. Therefore, some questions which can legitimately arise
such a situation are (i) Whether the Plaintiff could have reasonably
known about a transaction? (ii) Could that factum of execution of the
transaction be discovered by the Plaintiff by due diligence? (iii) What is
the nature of right that the Plaintiff claims to hold over the property? (iv)
Is his claim of belated knowledge consistent with such right that the
Plaintiff professes to have?, etc.
6.6 Originally, Hon’ble Apex Court in Dilboo (Dead) and Ors. vs.
Dhanraji (Dead) and Ors. MANU/SC/3318/2000 held as follows:
“It is always for the party who files the suit to show that
the suit is within time. Thus in cases where the suit is filed
beyond the period of 12 years, the Plaintiff would have to
aver and then prove that the suit is within 12 years of
his/her knowledge. In the absence of any averment or
proof, to show that the suit is within time it is the Plaintiff
who would fall. Whenever a document is registered the
date of registration becomes the date of deemedPage 5 of 21
Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:14:29 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/CRA/182/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
knowledge. In other cases where a fact could be
discovered by due diligence then deemed knowledge
would be attributed to the Plaintiff because a party
cannot be allowed to extend period of limitation by
merely claiming that he had no knowledge.”
6.7 This principle as laid down in Dilboo (supra) has been followed in
several judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court [See: Padhiar Prahladji
Chenaji v. Maniben Jagmalbhai, (2022) 12 SCC 128, etc.] This has been
the settled proposition of law since many years and decades now.
6.8 However, the other side of the position on acquisition of
knowledge is also required to be noticed at this juncture.
6.9 In Daliben Valjibhai and Ors. v. Prajapati Kodarbhai Kachrabhai
and Ors., MANU/SC/1433/2024, the Hon’ble Apex Court while negating
the stance of deemed knowledge held as under:
“9. Having considered the judgment of the High Court in
detail, we are of the opinion that the findings of the High
Court are primarily factual. The High Court seems to have
got carried away by the fact that the suit was filed 13 years
after the execution of the sale deed. The question is
whether the Plaintiffs had the knowledge of the execution
of the sale deed. The High Court expected that the
Plaintiffs must have given meticulous details of the fraud
perpetuated in the plaint itself.
10. The First Appellate Court came to the conclusion that
the Defendants made an application for correcting the
revenue records only in the year 2017 and on the said
application the Deputy Collector issued notice to the
Plaintiffs in March 2017 and that was the time when thePage 6 of 21
Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:14:29 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/CRA/182/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
Plaintiffs came to know about the execution of the sale
deed. It is under these circumstances that the suit was
instituted in the year 2017. While the High Court came to
the correct conclusion that Under Article 59 of the
Limitation Act, a suit can be instituted within 3 years of
the knowledge, it proceeded to return a finding that in
cases where the document is registered, the knowledge
must be presumed from the date of registration.
…
13. In view of the above, there was no justification for the
High Court in allowing the application Under Order 7
Rule 11, on issues that were not evident from the plaint
averments itself. The High Court was also not justified in
holding that the limitation period commences from the
date of registration itself. In this view of the matter the
judgment of the High Court is unsustainable.”
6.10 Moreover, in Chhotanben Chhotanben v. Kirtibhai
Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar, MANU/SC/0346/2018 Hon’ble Apex Court
held as follows:
“15. What is relevant for answering the matter in issue in
the context of the application Under Order 7 Rule 11(d)
Code of Civil Procedure, is to examine the averments in
the plaint. The plaint is required to be read as a whole.
The defence available to the Defendants or the plea taken
by them in the written statement or any application filed by
them, cannot be the basis to decide the application Under
Order 7 Rule 11(d). Only the averments in the plaint are
germane. It is common ground that the registered sale
deed is dated 18-10- 1996. The limitation to challenge the
registered sale deed ordinarily would start running from
the date on which the sale deed was registered. However,
the specific case of the Appellant- Plaintiffs is that until
2013 they had no knowledge whatsoever regarding
execution of such sale deed by their brothers, originalPage 7 of 21
Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:14:29 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/CRA/182/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
Defendants 1 and 2, in favour of Jaikrishnabhai
Prabhudas Thakkar or Defendants 3 to 6. They acquired
that knowledge on 26-12-2012 and immediately took steps
to obtain a certified copy of the registered sale deed and
on receipt thereof they realised the fraud played on them
by their brothers concerning the ancestral property and
two days prior to the filing of the suit, had approached
their brothers (original Defendants 1 and 2) calling upon
them to stop interfering with their possession and to
partition the property and provide exclusive possession of
half (½) portion of the land so designated towards their
share. However, when they realised that the original
Defendants 1 and 2 would not pay any heed to their
request, they had no other option but to approach the court
of law and filed the subject suit within two days therefrom.
According to the Appellants, the suit has been filed within
time after acquiring the knowledge about the execution of
the registered sale deed. In this context, the trial court
opined that it was a triable issue and declined to accept
the application filed by Respondent 1-Defendant 5 for
rejection of the plaint Under Order 7 Rule 11(d). That
view commends to us”.
6.11 In facts of these cases including Daliben (supra) and Chhotanben
(supra), the Hon’ble Court has come to the conclusion that it was not ex
facie evident from averments made in the Plaint that the Plaintiff had
knowledge of the registration of the sale deed.
6.12 This position has further been clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in its judgment of Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust and Ors. vs.
Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle and
Ors., MANU/SC/1382/2024
“14. The Plaintiff, in our wisdom, cannot assert or deny
something which was whether within the knowledge of
his predecessor or not, when he was not even born.
Page 8 of 21
Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:14:29 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/182/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
Irrespective of the above, the fact that the predecessors of
the Respondent No. 1/Plaintiff, never challenged the sale
of property to the Defendant No. 1/Appellant by court
auction and the subsequent registration of the deeds,
despite constructive notice, would imply that they had
acceded to the title of the Appellant, which cannot now be
questioned by the Plaintiff after such long time. There is
also a presumption in law that a registered document is
validly executed and is valid until it is declared as illegal.
In this regard, this Court in Prem Singh v. Birbal
MANU/SC/8139/2006, held as under:
27. There is a presumption that a registered document is
validly executed. A registered document, therefore,
prima facie would be valid in law. The onus of proof,
thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut
the presumption. In the instant case, Respondent 1 has
not been able to rebut the said presumption.
15. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to
relevant portion of Section 3 of the Transfer of Property
Act, 1882, which reads as under:
3. Interpretation clause …
a person is said to have notice of a fact when he actually
knows that fact, or when, but for wilful abstention from
an enquiry or search which he ought to have made, or
gross negligence, he would have known it.
Explanation I.-Where any transaction relating to
immoveable property is required by law to be and has
been effected by a registered instrument, any person
acquiring such property or any part of, or share or
interest in, such property shall be deemed to have notice
of such instrument as from the date of registration or,
where the property is not all situated in one sub-district,
or where the registered instrument has been registered
Page 9 of 21
Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:14:29 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/182/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
Under Sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the Indian
Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), from the earliest
date on which any memorandum of such registered
instrument has been filed by any Sub-Registrar within
whose sub-district any part of the property which is
being acquired, or of the property wherein a share or
interest is being acquired, is situated:
Provided that-(1) the instrument has been registered
and its registration completed in the manner prescribed
by the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), and
the Rules made thereunder, (2) the instrument or
memorandum has been duly entered or filed, as the case
may be, in books kept Under Section 51 of that Act,
and(3)the particulars regarding the transaction to
which the instrument relates have been correctly entered
in the indexes kept Under Section 55 of that Act. …
Explanation II.-Any person acquiring any immovable
property or any share or interest in any such property
shall be deemed to have notice of the title, if any, of any
person who is for the time being in actual possession
thereof.
Explanation III.-A person shall be deemed to have had
notice of any fact if his agent acquires notice thereof
whilst acting on his behalf in the course of business to
which that fact is material:
Provided that, if the agent fraudulently conceals the
fact, the principal shall not be charged with notice
thereof as against any person who was a party to or
otherwise cognizant of the fraud.
16. When a portion of the property has been conveyed by
court auction and registered in the first instance and when
another portion has been conveyed by a registered sale
deed in 1952, there is a constructive notice from the date
Page 10 of 21
Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:14:29 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/182/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
of registration and the presumption under Section 3 of the
Transfer of Property Act, comes into operation. The
possession, in the present case, also has been rested with
the Appellant before several decades, which operates as
notice of title. This Court in R.K. Mohd. Ubaidullah v.
Hajee C. Abdul Wahab MANU/SC/0433/2000 :
2000:INSC:338 : (2000) 6 SCC 402 at page 410, held as
follows:
15. Notice is defined in Section 3 of the Transfer of
Property Act. It may be actual where the party has
actual knowledge of the fact or constructive. “A person
is said to have notice” of a fact when he actually knows
that fact, or when, but for wilful abstention from an
inquiry or search which he ought to have made, or
gross negligence, he would have known it. …
Section 3 was amended by the Amendment Act of 1929 in
relation to the definition of “notice”. The definition has
been amended and supplemented by three explanations,
which settle the law in several matters of great
importance. For the immediate purpose Explanation II is
relevant. It states that actual possession is notice of the
title of the person in possession. Prior to the amendment
there had been some uncertainty because of divergent
views expressed by various High Courts in relation to the
actual possession as notice of title. A person may enter the
property in one capacity and having a kind of interest. But
subsequently while continuing in possession of the
property his capacity or interest may change. A person
entering the property as tenant later may become
usufructuary mortgagee or may be agreement holder to
purchase the same property or may be some other interest
is created in his favour subsequently. Hence with reference
to subsequent purchaser it is essential that he should make
an inquiry as to the title or interest of the person in actual
possession as on the date when the sale transaction was
made in his favour. The actual possession of a person
itself is deemed or constructive notice of the title if any,
of a person who is for the time being in actual possession
Page 11 of 21
Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:14:29 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/182/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
thereof. A subsequent purchaser has to make inquiry as to
further interest, nature of possession and title under which
the person was continuing in possession on the date of
purchase of the property. In the case on hand Defendants 2
to 4 contended that they were already aware of the nature
of possession of the Plaintiff over the suit property as a
tenant and as such there was no need to make any inquiry.
At one stage they also contended that they purchased the
property after contacting the Plaintiff, of course, which
contention was negatived by the learned trial court as well
as the High Court…”
6.13 This principle is recently elaborated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Uma Devi v. Anand Kumar, (2025) 5 SCC 198 as follows:
“13.A registered document provides a complete account of
a transaction to any party interested in the property. This
Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. (2) v.State of
Haryana [Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. (2) v. State of
Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 656 : (2012) 1 SCC (Civ) 351 :
(2012) 169 Comp Cas 133 : (2012) 340 ITR 1] held as
under : (SCC pp. 664-65, para 15)
15. … ’17. … Registration of a document [when it is
required by law to be, and has been effected by a
registered instrument] [Ed. : Section 3 Explanation I
TPA, reads as follows:”S. 3 Expln. I–Where any
transaction relating to immovable property is required
by law to be and has been effected by a registered
instrument, any person acquiring such property or any
part of, or share or interest in, such property shall be
deemed to have notice of such instrument as from the
date of registration….”(emphasis supplied)]] gives
notice to the world that such a document has been
executed
18. Registration provides safety and security to
transactions relating to immovable property, even if
the document is lost or destroyed. It gives publicity and
public exposure to documents thereby preventingPage 12 of 21
Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:14:29 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/CRA/182/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
forgeries and frauds in regard to transactions and
execution of documents. Registration provides
information to people who may deal with a property, as
to the nature and extent of the rights which persons may
have, affecting that property. In other words, it enables
people to find out whether any particular property with
which they are concerned, has been subjected to any
legal obligation or liability and who is or are the
person(s) presently having right, title, and interest in the
property. It gives solemnity of form and perpetuate
documents which are of legal importance or relevance
by recording them, where people may see the record
and enquire and ascertain what the particulars are and
as far as land is concerned what obligations exist with
regard to them. It ensures that every person dealing
with immovable property can rely with confidence upon
the statements contained in the registers (maintained
under the said Act) as a full and complete account of all
transactions by which the title to the property may be
affected and secure extracts/copies duly certified.’
[Ed. : As observed in Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd.
(1) v. State of Haryana, (2009) 7 SCC 363, pp. 367-68,
paras 17-18.]
14. Applying this settled principle of law, it can safely be
assumed that the predecessors of the plaintiffs had notice
of the registered sale deeds (executed in 1978), flowing
from the partition that took place way back in 1968, by
virtue of them being registered documents. In the lifetime
of Mangalamma, these sale deeds have not been
challenged, neither has partition been sought. Thus, the
suit (filed in the year 2023) of the plaintiffs was prima
facie barred by law. The plaintiffs cannot reignite their
rights after sleeping on them for 45 years.”
6.14 Even coordinate bench of this Court in several judgments has
adopted the presumption of deemed knowledge to reject a Plaint which is
otherwise vexatious and frivolous. In Whiteswan Buildcon LLP vs.
Thakor Praveenji Mangaji MANU/GJ/2573/2022 this Court held as
Page 13 of 21
Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:14:29 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/182/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
under:
“14. As held by the Supreme Court in case of Dilboo
(Smt.) (dead) by Lrs (supra), whenever a document is
registered, the date of registration becomes the date of
deemed knowledge. In other cases, where a fact could be
discovered by due diligence, then deemed knowledge
would be attributed to the plaintiff, because a party cannot
be allowed to extend period of limitation by merely
claiming that he had no knowledge. It is held that in other
cases where a fact could be discovered by due diligence
then deemed knowledge would be attributed to the
plaintiff because a party cannot be allowed to extend
period of limitation by merely claiming that he had no
knowledge. In the present case, the cause of action, as
narrated in the plaint, more particularly Paragraph No. 4
thereof, states that the plaintiffs came to know for the first
time about the registered document in the year 2018 when
they applied for Village Form No. 7/12 extract. The
plaintiffs in the plaint, is seeking setting aside of the
registered sale deed and as a consequence are also
claiming a share in the suit land. The averments in the
plaint reflect that she has alleged that heirs of late
Bhagwanji Maganji and Pratapji Maganji came to be
brought on the revenue record on 07.06.2005 and it is
further stated that late mother of the plaintiffs, though was
heir of Bhagwanji Maganji, her name was not brought on
record and she died on 17.03.2003 but in changed Entry
No. 2157, the names of the plaintiffs are not recorded or
entered and they came to know on 17.07.2018 when the
certified copy of Village Form No. 7/12 was obtained. The
facts, as narrated in the plaint, will suggest that since
2003 till 2018, no efforts are made by the plaintiffs to see
that after the demise of their mother in 2003 their names
are mutated in the revenue entries, and it is hard to
believe that though the plaintiffs are claiming share their
claim in the suit land, they would not care to examine the
revenue records for a period of almost 15 years. Thus, by
a clever drafting and in order to see that the limitation
period gets frustrated, the suit has been instituted on a solePage 14 of 21
Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:14:29 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/CRA/182/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
reason of obtaining Village Form No. 7/12 extract on
17.07.2018 by alleging that they were kept in dark for 15
years, after the registration of the sale deed on 25.05.2006.
It cannot be said that the plaintiffs have discovered the fact
of execution of the registered sale on due diligence by
obtaining such extract after a period of 15 years. Hence,
the suit, which is otherwise barred under the provisions of
Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act, by way of clever
drafting and by devising the cause of action, on the basis
of procuring village Form No. 7/12 in the year 2018; the
suit only appears to have been instituted to frustrate the
rights of the defendants. With regard to the prayer of
seeking proportionate share in the suit land, the same is a
consequential relief which entirely depends on the setting
aside the registered sale, hence the suit cannot be allowed
to be continued for the residuary prayer.”
6.15 Having noticed the aforesaid position of law on the aspect of
‘deemed knowledge’ the following principles can be culled out:
1) Prima Facie, there is a presumption that a registered document
has been validly executed [Prem Singh (supra)].
2) Registration of a document, (unless rebutting the presumption
of knowledge) gives notice to public about such registration
[Suraj Lamps (supra) Para 17].
3) Whenever a document is registered the date of registration
becomes the date of deemed knowledge. In other cases where a
fact could be discovered by due diligence then deemed
knowledge would be attributed to the Plaintiff [Dilboo (supra)].
4) After this stage, two outcomes may occur.
i. The Plaintiff has validly pleaded material and exact dates
Page 15 of 21
Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:14:29 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/182/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
of acquiring knowledge, etc. and has pleaded a cause of
action which is triable [cases to the likes of Daliben,
Chhotanben, etc.]
ii. The Plaintiff has made vague averments, pleaded illusory
cause, inasmuch as has pleaded such averments which
outright show that the date of knowledge as pleaded by the
Plaintiff is a false contention by way of clever drafting.
5) Therefore, at this juncture, under Order VII Rule 11, it is
important to examine and scrutinize the cause of action so
pleaded. If the cause of action is illusory, vexatious or frivolous
as being outright sham.
6.16 Therefore, the aforesaid facts clearly show that the Plaint was
barred by limitation and it is only to extend the period of limitation that
knowledge of such transactions is claimed to be recent. This is
impermissible in the eyes of law.
6.17 Such cases, where the Plaintiff in opinion of the Court, on a bare,
entire and meaningful reading of the Plaint, has pleaded a cause of action
which is illusory and merely by clever drafting the Plaintiff is seeking to
extend the limitation, deserve to be nipped in the bud.
6.18 The present case falls in the category where the Plaintiff has
pleaded a completely illusory and frivolous cause of action. This is clear
from the following undisputed facts:
(i) The plaintiff claims to be the owner of the property;
(ii) After over 26 years, the stance of the plaintiff in the suit is that the
suit property belongs to the plaintiff. However, they suddenly camePage 16 of 21
Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:14:29 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/CRA/182/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
to know about the suit transaction.
(iii) Even if the version of the plaintiff is taken on demurrer then it
transpires that the plaintiff had not duly verified or had diligence to
verify that an entry has been mutated in the revenue record of the
suit property since the year 1985.
6.19 Hence, in the present case, no shadow or doubt is cast over the
presumption of deemed knowledge. The Plaintiff has not disclosed
any cause of action. In fact, the cause of action pleaded by the
Plaintiff is illusory and by clever drafting, the present suit is sought
to be tried.
6.20 In view of the above referred facts Article 59 of Schedule of
Limitation Act would be required to be considered.
Article 59 of the Limitation Act
59. To cancel or set aside an Three When the facts entitling the
instrument or decree or for Years. Plaintiff to have the instrument or
the rescission of a contract. decree cancelled or set aside or the
contract rescinded first become
known to him.
6.21 Therefore, what is to be seen is that to obtain a declaratory relief,
the limitation starts running from the day that the right to sue first
accrues.
6.22 In Dahiben (supra) the Court stated as thus:
Page 17 of 21
Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:14:29 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/182/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
“In Khatri Hotels Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India &
Anr., (2011) 9 SCC 126, this Court held that the use of the
word first between the words sue and accrued, would
mean that if a suit is based on multiple causes of action,
the period of limitation will begin to run from the date
when the right to sue first accrues. That is, if there are
successive violations of the right, it would not give rise to
a fresh cause of action, and the suit will be liable to be
dismissed, if it is beyond the period of limitation counted
from the date when the right to sue first accrued.”
6.23 In view of the said provision it makes it clear that the aggrieved
person is supposed to file a suit to cancel or set aside an instrument
within a period of three years from the date on which he comes to
know about registration of Sale Deed.
6.24 While taking into consideration an Application under Order VII
Rule 11(d) of the Code, the Court has to consider the averments in
the Plaint and the documents produced along with the Plaint but
there cannot be any dispute that if the Court finds that considering
the averments in the Plaint the suit is clearly barred by law of
limitation the Plaint can be rejected in exercise of powers under
Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code.
6.25 In the present case, the documents which have been referred are
registered documents and therefore the date of registration becomes
the date of deemed knowledge and the said fact which could have
been easily discovered by due diligence. Hence, the Plaintiff cannot
state that for 26 years the Plaintiff was not aware of execution of a
Sale Deed with respect to a property that the Plaintiffs allege to
belong to them.
Page 18 of 21
Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:14:29 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/182/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
6.26 In the present case the suit properties have been transferred by
registered documents and therefore the date of registration becomes
the date of deemed knowledge and in the present case the fact of
registration of Sale Deeds could be discovered by due diligence by
the Plaintiffs and therefore the Plaintiff would be deemed to have
necessary knowledge.
6.27 The present Plaintiff has by clever drafting tried to bring the suit
within the period of limitation which otherwise is barred by law of
limitation. In the present case no particulars of fraud have been
given in the Plaint and the Plaintiff had only stated that the fraud
have been committed on the Plaintiffs. The law is very clear under
the Order VI Rule 4 of the Code which reads as under:
“4. Particulars to be given where necessary. – In all
cases in which the party pleading relies on any
misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, willful default,
or undue influence, and in all other cases in which
particulars may be necessary beyond such as are
exemplified in the forms aforesaid, particulars (with
dates and items if necessary) shall be stated in the
pleading.”
6.28 Therefore, there has to be details of fraud as the fraud relies on
misrepresentation, fraud breach of trust, undue reference and
therefore, the particular are to be given.
7. The present is the case of shrewd and crafty drafting, the averments
made in the Plaint clearly show that by clever drafting the Plaintiff
has tried to show that the suit is within the period of limitation. The
Page 19 of 21
Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:14:29 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/182/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
Court has to consider and read in meaningful manner the averments
made in the Plaint and the present suit having been filed challenging
the Sale Deed after 26 years, the Plaint is hopelessly time barred.
The bar of limitation has got its own significance and the object as
such by referring smart averments, such statutory provision cannot
be sidelined. Though the issue of limitation is mixed question of
law and fact but only by that fact an application under the
provisions of Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code cannot be rejected
as it would frustrate the very purpose of the said provision and
permit such kind of frivolous litigation which are hopelessly barred
by law of limitation and the same will have to be decided
irrespective of its tenability.
8. In Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. Vs. Central Bank of India
And Anr., AIR Online 2020 SC 576 Hon’ble Apex Court stated
that the Trial Court cannot selectively read averments of the Plaint
as pleaded in cause of action and in fact, the same must be read
completely and meaningfully. However, in the present case, even
upon an entire reading of the Plaint, the cause of action is not
disclosed and it is only illusory and sham.
9. Similary in Salim D. Agboatwala and Ors. Vs. Shamalji Oddhavji
Thakkar and Ors, AIR Online 2021 SC 731 Hon’ble Court held
that the limitation was a mixed question of law and fact. It was held
in those given facts that the Plaintiff became aware of the
transaction when it gained knowledge of the proceedings. However,
in the present case, the Plaintiff has stated that for a period of over
41 years and revenue entry entered in the year 1959 was not within
Page 20 of 21
Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:14:29 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/182/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
knowledge of the Plaintiff. This is clearly is clever drafting and
hence, must be nipped in the bud.
10. Even the Judgments of Daliben (supra) and Chhotanben (supra)
are not applicable in facts of the present case as discussed above.
CONCLUSION :
11. Therefore, as discussed above, the present case is a case of clever
drafting by the Plaintiff to extend and shroud the actual period of
limitation. The Plaintiff cannot be permitted to challenge registered
sale deeds after a period of over 26 years in view of the discussion
above.
12. In view of the foregoing, the present Plaint is barred by Limitation
and hence, the same is required to be rejected under the provisions
of Order VII Rule 11. Consequently, the present Civil Revision
Application deserves to be allowed and is thus allowed. The Plaint
in Regular Civil Suit No.682 of 2011 is hereby rejected. Rule is
made absolute.
Sd/-
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)
MISHRA AMIT V.
Page 21 of 21
Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:14:29 IST 2025
[ad_1]
Source link