Gujarat High Court
M/S. Vraj Developers, A Partnership … vs Rameshbhai Gopalbhai Patel on 3 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/26/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 26 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
M/S. VRAJ DEVELOPERS, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, THROUGH PARTNER
& ORS.
Versus
RAMESHBHAI GOPALBHAI PATEL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MEHUL SHARAD SHAH(773) for the Applicant(s) No.
1,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,2,3,4,5
MR AMIT V THAKKAR(3073) for the Opponent(s) No.
59,60,61,62,63,64,75,76
MR NACHIKET A DAVE(5308) for the Opponent(s) No. 80,81,83
MR UDAYAN P VYAS(1302) for the Opponent(s) No. 1,11,2,3,4,5,7,8,9
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the Opponent(s) No. 77
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s) No. 12,19,78
SERVED BY PUBLICATION IN NEWS for the Opponent(s) No.
14,18,20,38,39,44,77.1,77.2
SERVED BY RPAD (R) for the Opponent(s) No.
10,15,16,17,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,40,41,42,43
,56,57,6,63,73,74,79,82,86,87,88
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Date : 03/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
Page 1 of 54
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:19:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/26/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
TABLE OF CONTENTS
THE DISPUTE – IN BRIEF…………………………………………………………..3
SUBMISSION OF PETITIONER [DEFENDANT]…………………………5
SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT [PLAINTIFF]:…………….18
ANALYSIS:…………………………………………………………………………………20
ILLUSORY CAUSE OF ACTION……………………………………………………….27
DEEMED KNOWLEDGE…………………………………………………………………33
ARTICLE 59 OF THE LIMITATION ACT……………………………………………48
CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………………54
Page 2 of 54
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:19:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/26/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Udayan Vyas
waives service of Rule on behalf of Respondent No. 1 to 5, 7, 8, 9
and 11.
2. With the consent of the parties, the present matter is taken up for
final hearing.
3. For the sake of brevity and convenience, the parties are referred to
at their original status as in the suit.
4. The present Civil Revision Application challenges the Order
passed in Special Civil Suit No. 234 of 2015 whereby by an Order
dated 18.11.2016, the 12th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat has
rejected an Application (Exhibit 74) filed under the provisions of
Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short
“the Code”).
THE DISPUTE – IN BRIEF
5. Plaintiff filed the present suit challenging the Sale Deeds executed
between the year 1964 to 2011 by the legal heirs of Dayalbhai
Fakirbhai Motla on the ground that the Plaintiffs have a right in the
property. It has further been alleged that a fraudulent revenue entry
has been entered in the revenue records by way of revenue Entry No.
283 in the year 1959 and that the suit property belonged to
forefathers of the Plaintiffs, i.e., Fakirbhai Motla.
6. Being the legal heir of Fakirbhai Patel, the Plaintiff has right, title
and interest in the suit property and therefore one of the family
member could not have executed a Sale Deed with respect to the suit
property on 17.07.1964.
Page 3 of 54
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:19:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/26/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
7. The Family Tree of the Plaintiff is as under:
Page 4 of 54
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:19:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/26/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
8. Therefore, it is the contention of the Plaintiffs that the suit property
was sold by the legal heirs of Dayalbhai Fakirbhai Motala (Son of
Fakirbhai), whose names have been mutated by way of revenue
entry No. 283 in the year 1959 pursuant to the death of Gandabhai
Fakirbhai Motala.
9. Alleging thus, the Plaintiffs have challenged 36 Sale Deeds
executed between the year 1964 to 2011.
10. The Defendants appeared in the suit and filed an Application under
the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, mainly on the
ground that names of the seller of the Sale Deed dated 13.07.1964
have been mutated in the revenue record by way of entry no. 283 on
25.08.1959.
11. Therefore, since the year 1959, the sellers’ name was mutated as
owner of the property and the father or even the grandfather of the
Plaintiffs have never challenged the revenue Entry no. 283 and or
the Sale Deeds executed between the year 1964 to 2011 nor have
they challenged the revenue entry pursuant to the said 36 Sale Deeds
under challenge and therefore the said Plaint is barred by law.
12. After taking into consideration the Plaint and the documents
produced with the Plaint, the Trial Court rejected the said
application on the ground that the Plaintiff has alleged that the
Plaintiff received the certified copies only on October 2014 and
therefore, the Plaint cannot be said to be barred by limitation. Hence
the present Civil Revision Application.
SUBMISSION OF PETITIONER [DEFENDANT]
Page 5 of 54
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:19:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/26/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
13. Learned Advocate for the Defendant Mr. Mehul Shah has mainly
contended that from the bare reading of the Plaint and the documents
annexed with the Plaint, it can be clearly established that the Plaint
is barred by law and is required to be rejected. It has been argued by
the learned advocate that the entire suit is based on the fact that the
suit property belonged to Fakirbhai Motlabhai Patel and after his
death, his four children i.e. Gandabhai Fakirbhai, Govindbhai
Fakirbhai, Dayalbhai Fakirbhai and Durlabhbhai Fakirbhai inherited
the property.
14. Plaintiffs being the legal heirs of Fakirbhai and the fact that
Gandabhai Fakirbhai expired and he did not have any Class 1 heir as
per Hindu Succession Act and as the suit property belonged to
Fakirbhai Motala Patel and therefore his other three sons,
Govindbhai Fakirbhai, Dayalbhai Fakirbhai and Durlabhbhai
Fakirbhai inherited the property and the present Plaintiffs being the
legal heirs of Govindbhai Fakirbhai and Durlabhbhai Fakirbhai have
a right in the suit property.
15. Ld. Advocate has argued that the fact remains that as per Revenue
Entry No. 283 the suit property was not in the name of Fakirbhai,
but was in the name of Ganda Fakirbhai Patel and he expired on
14.05.1959. Pursuant to his death, the names of Nandiben
Dayalbhai, Balubhai Dayalbhai and minor Naginbhai Gopalbhai’s
name were mutated on 25.08.1959
16. Therefore it has been argued that the owners of the suit property
have executed a Sale Deed in the year 1964 and the said Sale Deed
is under challenge after a period of 51 years and the said Sale Deed
Page 6 of 54
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:19:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/26/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
being a registered document is deemed notice to all and therefore the
Plaintiff could not have filed a suit challenging a Sale Deed of the
year 1964 in the year 2015.
17. Learned Advocate for the defendant has also argued that even as
per the Plaint, the cause of action to file the present suit has arisen
for the first time in the year 1959 when the suit property was
mutated in the name of the sellers of the Sale Deed dated 13.07.1964
and therefore when once period of limitation has began to run, no
subsequent disability or inability to institute a suit stops the same.
Therefore, it is urged that the present suit is hopelessly time barred.
18. It has further been argued that if entire Plaint is taken into
consideration the Plaintiff has come forward with the case that the
suit property belonged to Fakirbhai Patel i.e., the forefathers of the
Plaintiff and after his death the suit property was inherited by his
four sons Gandabhai Fakirbhai, Govindbhai Fakirbhai, Dayalbhai
Fakirbhai and Durlabhbhai Fakirbhai. On this basis, it is averred that
Gandabhai Fakirbhai is not the exclusive owner of the property.
19. The Plaintiff has stated in the Plaint that a copy of Civil Suit No.
1513 of 1985 has been produced along with other documents and it
has been argued by learned Advocate for the defendant that, by
perusing the Plaint of Civil Suit No. 1513 of 1985, it can be clearly
seen that the said suit is filed by the Grandfather of the Plaintiffs,
against the sellers of Sale Deed executed on 17.07.1964. Though the
said suit is with respect to the other properties that belonged to
Gandabhai Fakirbhai and not the suit property, but even in the year
1985, when the said suit was filed, the grandfather of the Plaintiffs
Page 7 of 54
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:19:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/26/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
had not sought any relief with respect to the suit property. In the said
suit, the grandfather of the Plaintiffs has challenged revenue entry
no. 372 dated 26.08.1959, whereby the names of the seller of
registered Sale Deed dated 17.07.1964, were mutated and the name
of Gandabhai Fakirbhai was deleted because of his death.
20. Therefore, in view of the fact that in the present suit also, by way
of revenue entry no.283, dated 25.08.1959 whereby the names of the
seller of registered Sale Deed dated 17.07.1964 were mutated and
the name of Gandabhai Fakirbhai was deleted because of his death it
can be clearly established that even while filing Civil Suit No. 1513
of 1985, the grandfather of the Plaintiffs have neither challenged the
said entry nor have challenged the Sale Deed executed by Nandiben
in favour of Dahyabhai Patel and therefore it has been argued that
the Plaint is hopelessly time barred and in that view of the same the
Plaint is required to be rejected.
21. The learned advocate for the Plaintiff has relied upon the following
judgments:
1. Becharbhai Zaverbhai Patel Vs. Jashbhai Shivabhai Patel,
(2013) 1 GLR 398;
2. Kanjibhai Bhagwanjibhai Patel Vs. Nanduben Shamjibhai
Sorathiya Through P.O.A., Dharmesh P.Trivedi, 2013 (1)
GLR 51;
3. Suresh Kumar Dagla Vs. Sarwan, 2014 (14) SCC 254;
4. N. V. Srinivasa Murty Vs. Mariyamma (Dead) By Proposed
Lrs, 2005 (5) SCC 548;
5. Dilboo (Dead) By Lrs. Vs. Dhanraji (Dead), 2000 (7) SCC
702;
6. Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanushali, 2020 7 SCC
366,Page 8 of 54
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:19:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/CRA/26/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
7. T. Arvindandam Vs. T.V.Satyapal and Another, (1977) 4 SCC
467;
8. Uma Devi And Ors. Vs. Sri. Anand Kumar And Ors., 2025
LiveLaw SC 382;
22. At this juncture, I deem it apposite to reproduce appropriate and
applicable portions of these judgments here:
23. In case of Becharbhai Zaverbhai Patel Vs. Jashbhai Shivabhai
Patel, (2013) 1 GLR 398, it is held as under:
“6. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the
Plaint the original Plaintiffs have challenged the
registered sale deed dated 25.8.1975 which has been
executed by the original defendant no.1 in favour of
defendants no. 3 and 4 and the said suit has been filed in
the year 2010 i.e. after a period of 35 years. It is also
required to be noted and even so pleaded / averred in the
Plaint that name of father of the defendant no.1 was
mutated in the revenue record and even thereafter on the
death of father of the defendants no.1 and 2 Chottabhai
Bhagwanbhai mutated in the revenue record on
11.10.1979 vide mutation entry no.1024. It is also further
averred in the Plaint that even the name of defendants no.
3 and 4 were also mutated in the revenue record pursuant
to the sale deed dated 25.8.1975 vide entry no.1115 and
not only that even in 1981 there was partition between
defendants no. 3 and 4 and the land bearing Survey
No.380 (disputed suit land) has gone into the share of
Ambalal Patel defendant no.4 and his name is mutated in
the revenue record vide mutation entry no.1283 dated
10.6.1981. Even considering cause of action pleaded in the
Plaint in para 8, it appears to the Court that the averments
in the Plaint are too vague and nothing has been
mentioned in the said para on which date he came to knowPage 9 of 54
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:19:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/CRA/26/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
about the registered sale deed dated 25.8.1975. Even in
the entire Plaint nothing has been pleaded with respect to
limitation. Mere cleaver drafting in the Plaint and by such
vague averments and the pleading the cause of action in
the Plaint, the suit which is otherwise barred by law of
limitation can not be brought within a period of limitation.
6.3. Now, so far as the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Balasaria Construction (P)Ltd (supra)
relied upon by the learned advocate for the original
Plaintiffs, as stated above it cannot be disputed that while
considering application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of Code
of Civil Procedure at that stage the Court is required to
consider the averments in the Plaint and supporting
documents produced along with Plaint only. However,
considering the facts and circumstances of the case and as
stated above even considering the averments and the
pleadings in the Plaint as they are, the suit is clearly
barred by law of limitation. Under the circumstances, the
impugned order passed by the learned trial Court deserves
to be quashed and set aside.”
24. In case of Kanjibhai Bhagwanjibhai Patel Vs. Nanduben
Shamjibhai Sorathiya Through P.O.A., Dharmesh P.Trivedi,
2013 (1) GLR 51, it is held as under:
“8. At the outset, it is required to be noted that as stated
above, in the respective suits the original Plaintiffs have
prayed to quash and set aside the power of attorney dated
5-1-1997 and subsequent transactions/sale-deeds executed
by the original defendant No. 1 as power of attorney
holder in favour of the respective original defendant No. 2
in the respective suits executed in the year 1998. At the
outset, it is also required to be noted that the respectivePage 10 of 54
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:19:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/CRA/26/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
suits have been preferred in the year 2010 for declaration
and permanent injunction to declare that the power of
attorney dated 5-1-1997 is illegal and bogus and also
prayed to quash and set aside the transactions/sale-deeds
executed in the year 1998 which were executed on the
basis of the power of attorney dated 5-1-1997. Thus, as
such the suits have been preferred after a period of
approximately 12 to 13 years.”
25. In case of Suresh Kumar Dagla Vs. Sarwan, 2014 (14) SCC 254,
it is held as under:
“9. The 1st respondent has not disputed the fact that he
had already 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
the aforesaid fact, it is clear that the 1st respondent had
knowledge about the sale deed and as back as in the month
of September, 1993.
10. From the aforesaid fact, it is clear that the suit was
barred by limitation and thereby 1st respondent cannot
derive any benefit in terms of Section 257 of the
Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959.”
26. In case of N. V. Srinivasa Murty Vs. Mariyamma (Dead) By
Proposed Lrs, 2005 (5) SCC 548, it is held as under:
“14. After examining the pleadings of the Plaint as
discussed above, we are clearly of the opinion that by
clever drafting of the Plaint the civil suit which is
hopelessly barred for seeking avoidance of registered sale
deed of 05.05.1953, has been instituted by taking recoursePage 11 of 54
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:19:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/CRA/26/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
to orders passed in mutation proceedings by the revenue
courts.
15. Civil suit no. 557 of 1990 was pending when the
present suit was filed. In the present suit, the relief
indirectly claimed is of declaring the sale deed of
05.05.1953 to be not really a sale deed but a loan
transaction. Relief of reconveyance of property under
alleged oral agreement on return of loan has been
deliberately omitted from the relief clause. In our view, the
present Plaint is liable to rejection, if not on the ground
that it does not disclose ’cause of action’, on the ground
that from the averments in the Plaint, the suit is apparently
barred by law within the meaning of Cl.(d) of Or.7, R.11 of
Code of Civil Procedure.
16. The High Court does not seem to be right in rejecting
the Plaint on the ground that it does not disclose any
’cause of action’. In our view, the trial court was right in
coming to the conclusion that accepting all averments in
the Plaint, the suit seems to be barred by limitation. On
critical examination of the Plaint as discussed by us above,
the suit seems to be clearly barred on the facts stated in
the Plaint itself. The suit as framed is prima facie barred
by the law of limitation, provisions of Specific Relief Act as
also under Or. 2 R. 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.”
27. In case of Dilboo (Dead) By Lrs. Vs. Dhanraji (Dead), 2000 (7)
SCC 702, it is held as under:
“14. Being aggrieved by this Judgement 1st respondent
filed Civil Appeal No. 149 of 1967. The first appellant
Court found, on a proper appreciation of evidence, that
Ram Charan Sonar and Swaroop Sonar had been makingPage 12 of 54
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:19:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/CRA/26/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
claims to be owners of the property, ever since the death of
Lakshamania, and that no heir of Lakshamania had
refuted this claim. The first appellate Court also noted that
the predecessors in title of the 1st respondent had not
stepped into the witness box to prove that they were
related to Lakshamania. The first appellate Court also
held that the documents relied upon by the 1st respondent
viz. Ex. 20, Ex. 21 and Ex. 22 would not establish
relationship as the persons who could give the best
evidence had been available and had not stepped into the
witness box. The first appellate Court noted that the only
family member who gave evidence was Smt. Mantorani
and she had deposed that some of the predecessors in title
of the 1st respondent were not related. The first appellate
Court thus held that it was not proved that the
predecessors in title of the 1st respondent were related to
Smt. Lakshamania. The first appellate Court also held that
the Suit was time barred so far as the Mortgage Deed of
12.09.1916 and the Sale Deed of 26.10.1942 were
concerned. The first appellate Court noticed that the Sale
Deed dated 26.10.1942 was for a sum of Rs. 800.00 which
created an interest in excess of the one held by the alleged
mortgagee. The first appellant Court held that the suit
against the purchasers was barred by Art. 134 of the
Limitation Act. With these findings the Civil Appeal was
dismissed on 20.03.1967.
15. 1st respondent then filed Second Appeal No. 2100 of
1973. To be noted that the question whether or not the
predecessors in title of the 1st Respondent were heirs of
Smt. Laxmina was purely a question of fact. It went to the
root of the case. That it was purely a question of fact was
also noted by the High Court. This is clear from the fact
that in the Judgement it is recorded as follows:
Page 13 of 54
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:19:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/26/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
“The second point before the lower appellate Court related
to the Plaintiff’s right to sue. The finding that Sitaram was
not the son of Paltan and Bechni and Rajwanti were not
the daughters of Gajadhar and Madho respectively, is
undoubtedly a finding of fact, but here again it was
contended by Mr. V. K. S. Choudhary that here the finding
is vitiated by errors of law and procedure.” (Emphasis
supplied)In spite of so noting the High Court then proceeds to re-
appreciate evidence in a Second Appeal. Reliance is
placed on Exs. 20, 21 and 22 to arrive at a finding that
these documents established the relationship. The High
Court holds that non-examination of the predecessors in
title of the 1st respondent did not matter as they would
only have confirmed the statements in these documents.
The High Court disbelieves evidence of Smt. Mantorani
without any cogent reasons. High Court tries to justify its
appreciation of evidence in the following manner :
“… findings arrived at by the lower appellate Court were
vitiated by an error of law in excluding from consideration
the documentary evidence on this question…”
The law on the subject is very clear. Even under the
unamended Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
the Court could only interfere on a question of law. As
admitted by High Court the question, whether the
predecessors in title were heirs of Lakshamania was
purely a question of fact. Both the Courts below had given
concurrent findings that it was not proved that the
predecessors in title of the 1st respondent were related to
Smt. Lakshamania. The justification sought to be given by
the Judge that there was an error of law in excluding
documents from consideration is patently wrong. Both the
Courts below had not excluded the documents from
Page 14 of 54
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:19:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/26/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
consideration. Both the Courts below had considered the
documents. Both the Courts below had rightly held that
mere statements in documents prepared by concerned /
interested parties cannot establish proof of facts stated
therein. Parties who could establish the relationship were
available. They were party defendants to the suit. Both the
Courts below had rightly noted that these parties had
chosen not to step into the witness box. In our view both
the Courts below had correctly appreciated the evidence
and arrived at the correct conclusion. The High Court in
re-appreciating evidence and arriving at a contrary
conclusion erred not only in law but also on facts. To be
remembered that defendants 3 to 7 were outsiders. They
were not members of the family. As they had denied
relationship the same had to be established. It had to be
established in a manner which would give them an
opportunity to repudiate it. Mere statements made by
interested family members in earlier documents would not
bind them or be proof against them.”
28. In case of Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanushali, 2020 7
SCC 366, it is held as under:
“14. On a perusal of the registered Sale Deed dated
02.07.2009, [marked as Exhibit 3/9] it was noted that the
Plaintiffs had in fact accepted and acknowledged the
payment of the full sale consideration from Respondent
No.1, through cheques which were issued prior to the
execution of the Sale Deed, during the period 07.07.2008
to 02.07.2009. As per the Plaintiffs, the Sale Deed was
executed on 02.07.2009 in favour of Respondent No.1,
which was registered before the Office of the Sub-
Registrar, for which the Plaintiffs would have remained
personally present. The transaction having been executed
through a registered document, was in the public domain,Page 15 of 54
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:19:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/CRA/26/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
and in the knowledge of the Plaintiffs right from the
beginning.
15. The Trial Court noted that there was no averment in
the Plaint that the cheques had not been received by them.
Once the cheques were received by them, in the normal
course, they would have presented the cheques for
encashment within 6 months. The Court held that had the
Plaintiffs not been able to encash 30 cheques, a comPlaint
ought to have been filed, or proceedings initiated for
recovery of the unpaid sale consideration. There was
however, nothing on record to show that the Plaintiffs had
made any comPlaint in this regard for a period of over 5
years. The Plaintiffs also failed to produce the returned
cheques, their passbooks, bank statements, or any other
document to support their averments in the Plaint. A notice
for transfer of the suit property in the revenue records
under Section 135D was served on the Plaintiffs, to which
no objection was raised. The name of Respondent No. 1
was entered into the revenue records, which was certified
by the Revenue Officer.”
29. In case of T. Arvindandam Vs. T.V.Satyapal and Another,
(1977) 4 SCC 467, it is held as under;
“6. The trial Court in this case will remind itself of sec. 35-
A, C. P. C. and take deterrent action if it is satisfied that
the litigation was inspired by vexatious motives and
altogether groundless. In any view, that suit has no
survival value and should be disposed of forthwith after
giving an immediate hearing to the parties concerned.
7. We regret the infliction of the ordeal upon the learned
Judge of the High Court by a callous party. We more thanPage 16 of 54
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:19:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/CRA/26/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
regret the circumstance that the party concerned has been
able to prevail upon one lawyer or the other to present to
the court a case which was disingenuous or worse. It may
be a valuable contribution to the cause of justice if counsel
screen wholly fraudulent and frivolous litigation refusing
to be beguiled by dubious clients. And remembering that
an advocate is an officer of justice he owes it to society not
to collaborate in shady actions. The Bar Council of India,
we hope will activate this obligation. We are constrained
to make these observations and hope that the co- operation
of the Bar will be readily forthcoming to the Bench for
spending judicial time on worthwhile disputes and
avoiding the distraction of sham litigation such as the one
we are disposing of. Another moral of this unrighteous
chain litigation is the gullible grant of ex parte orders
tempts gamblers in litigation into easy courts. A judge who
succumbs to ex parte pressure in un 51 years amerited
cases helps devalue the judicial process. We must
appreciate Shri Ramasesh for his young candour and
correct advocacy.”
30. In case of Uma Devi And Ors. Vs. Sri. Anand Kumar And Ors.,
2025 LiveLaw SC 382, it is held as under:
“13. 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.”
Page 17 of 54
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:19:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/26/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
31. Learned Advocate for the Defendant has also argued that if the
entire Plaint is taken into consideration the Plaintiff has not joined
the purchaser of registered Sale Deed dated 17.07.1964 who has
thereafter sold the property and therefore as the said purchaser is not
joined as party defendant the decree if any is passed will not be
binding on the said defendant and therefore also the Plaint is
required to be rejected as it is barred by law and the Trial Court
could not have rejected the said application and in view of the facts
stated above the Plaint is required to be rejected as the same is
barred by law.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT [PLAINTIFF]:
32. Per Contra, Learned Advocate for the Plaintiff has mainly argued
that the suit that has been filed is with respect to the claim of the
Plaintiff in the suit premises. The Plaintiff has specifically stated that
the Plaintiff was not aware of the suit transaction and it was only in
the month of October, 2014, when the Plaintiff got the certified
copies and after perusing the old documents the Plaintiff issued
notice and therefore, the suit that has been filed by the Plaintiff is
within the period of limitation. It has also been argued that at the
stage of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the
Code, the Court can only look at the Plaint and the documents
annexed with the Plaint and as the Plaintiff has categorically stated
that till October, 2014 the Plaintiffs were not aware of the suit
transaction the said fact can only be decided after the oral evidence
is taken and the Plaint cannot be rejected only on the ground that the
Page 18 of 54
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:19:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/26/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
Plaintiff has challenged different Sale Deeds from the year 1964 to
2015.
33. It has been argued that once the averments in the Plaint state that
the Plaintiff came to know of the said facts only in the year October
2014, the same at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 must be assumed to
be true. No defence of the Defendants can be looked into at this
stage.
34. Learned advocate for the Respondent/Plaintiff has relied upon the
following judgments:
1. Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. Vs. Central Bank of India
And Anr., AIR Online 2020 SC 576;
2. Salim D.Agboatwala and Ors. Vs. Shamalji Oddhavji
Thakkar and Ors, AIROnline 2021 SC 731;
3. Chhotanben and Another Vs. Kiritbhai Jalkrushnabhai
Thakkar and Others, AIR 2018 SUPREME COURT 2447;
4. Daliben Valjibhai Ors. Vs. Prajapati Kodarbhai Kachrabhai
& Anr., (Arising out of SLP (CIVIL) No.23625 of 2024).
35. These judgments have been dealt with in later part of this
judgment.
36. Learned Advocate for the Plaintiff has also argued that the fact that
the Sale Deeds were registered and therefore the Plaintiff should
have deemed knowledge of execution of the said Sale Deeds cannot
be considered in view of the fact that the Plaintiff in the Plaint has
categorically stated that the Plaintiff came to know of the suit
transaction in the month of October, 2014. It has also been argued
by the learned advocate for the Plaintiff that the suit that has been
Page 19 of 54
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:19:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/26/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
filed by the Plaintiff consists of bundle of facts and therefore the
question of suit being barred by limitation is a mixed question of law
and facts and the Plaint cannot be rejected under the provisions of
Order VII Rule 11 of the Code and unless and until oral evidence is
led the present suit cannot be rejected and it is only after leading oral
evidence that the Trial Court can ascertain whether the suit is time
barred and the Plaintiff had the knowledge of the suit transaction
before the period of limitation.
37. Learned Advocate for the Plaintiff has therefore argued that the
order that has been passed by the Trial Court does not require any
interference and is required to be rejected.
ANALYSIS:
38. In the present suit, the following documents are under challenge:
SCHEDULE B
Sr. Purchaser Seller Date Plot Registra Selling
No tion No. Price
.
1. Dahyabhai Balubhai 17-07-64 11 1810 12655/-
Kevalbhai Patel Dayalbhai and Acre two others 29 Gunt ha 2. Kishanlalji 1)Hasmukhlal 13-09-1989 1/A 588 23900/- Madanlalji Kothari Khushalbhai Natha and one 3. Achaldas Gyanchand 1)Khushalbhai 02-12-1989 1/G 594 23900/- Page 20 of 54 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:19:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/26/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025 undefined Bhutada Natha and one 4. Achaldas Gyanchand 1)Khushalbhai 13-09-1989 1/C 586 23900/- Bhutada Natha and one 5. Laxminarayan 1)Hasmukhlal 13-09-1989 1/D 584 23900/- Kaluram Chandak Khushalbhai Natha and one 6. Manakpar Kishanlal 1)Hasmukhlal 13-09-1989 1/B 587 23900/- Kothari Khushalbhai Natha and one 7. Manakpar Kishanlal 1)Mahendrabhai 02-12-1989 1/L 591 23900/- Kothari Khushalbhai Natha and one 8. Shaymasundar 1)Hasmukhlal 23-04-1990 1/J 5989 23900/- Satyanarayan Soni Khushalbhai Natha and one 9. Kishanlal Madanlal 1)Hasmukhlal 23-04-1990 5988 40000/- Kothari Khushalbhai Natha and one 10. Navalkishor Liladhar 1)Hasmukhlal 09-04-1990 1/E 10251 23350/- Rathi Khushalbhai Natha and one 11. 1)Shri Bipinchandra 1)Shri 14-06-2005 5/A 7298 1425000/- Navinchand Sanjaybhai Chakavala and five Hasmukhbhai 4/B others Tamakuvala 4/C 12. Ms.Vraj Developers Brijmohan 21-06-2007 K/1 8244 200000/- one partner side, its Bhagwandas partners Pasari (1)Himmatbhai Mohanbhai Kheni and two others 13. Ms.Vraj Developers Vallabhdas 21-06-2007 S/2 8245 200000/- one partner side, its Jivanlal Rathi partners(1)Himmatb Page 21 of 54 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:19:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/26/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025 undefined hai Mohanbhai Kheni and three others 14. Ms.Vraj Developers Vallabhdas 21-06-2007 T/2 8248 200000/- one partner side, its Jivanlal Rathi partners (1)Himmatbhai Mohanbhai Kheni and three others 15. Ms.Vraj Developers Bhanvarlal 21-06-2007 R/2 8246 200000/- one partner side, its Jivanlal Rathi partners (1)Himmatbhai Mohanbhai Kheni and three others 16. Ms.Vraj Developers Bhanvarlal 21-06-2007 Q/2 8250 200000/- one partner side, its Jivanlal Rathi partners (1)Himmatbhai Mohanbhai Kheni and three others 17. Ms.Vraj Developers Lalitkumar 29-06-2007 N/1 8498 368000/- one partner side, its Bansidhar Rathi partners (1)Himmatbhai Mohanbhai Kheni and three others 18. Ms.Vraj Developers Lalitkumar 29-06-2007 R/2 8496 341000/- one partner side, its Bansidhar Rathi partners (1)Himmatbhai Mohanbhai Kheni Page 22 of 54 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:19:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/26/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025 undefined and three others 19. Ms.Vraj Developers Bhikhchand 23-07-2007 A/1 9453 375000/- one partner side, its Jivanlal Rathi partners (1)Himmatbhai Mohanbhai Kheni and three others 20. Ms.Vraj Developers Bhikhchand 23-07-2007 S/2 9452 341000/- one partner side, its Jivanlal Rathi partners (1)Himmatbhai Mohanbhai Kheni and three others 21. Ms.Vraj Developers Prakash 13-08-2007 Q/1 10222 341000/- one partner side, its Bansidhar partners Sharda (1)Himmatbhai Mohanbhai Kheni and three others 22. Ms.Vraj Developers Kalyansingh 01-09-2007 B/2 10973 200000/- one partner side, its Mohansingh partners Mehta (1)Himmatbhai Mohanbhai Kheni and three others 23. Ms.Vraj Developers Ms.Vraj 01-09-2007 A/2 10974 200000/- one partner side, its Developers one partners partner side, its (1)Himmatbhai partners Mohanbhai Kheni 1)Himmatbhai and three others Mohanbhai Kheni and three others Page 23 of 54 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:19:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/26/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025 undefined 24. Ms.Vraj Developers Bansidhar 01-09-2007 C/2 10975 225000/- one partner side, its Jivanlal Rathi partners (1)Himmatbhai Mohanbhai Kheni and three others 25. Ms.Vraj Developers Sunil 24-09-2007 I/1 11732 200000/- one partner side, its Kalyansingh partners Mehta (1)Himmatbhai Mohanbhai Kheni and three others 26. Ms.Vraj Developers Sunil 24-09-2007 D/2 11731 265000/- one partner side, its Kalyansingh partners Mehta (1)Himmatbhai Mohanbhai Kheni and three others 27. Ms.Vraj Developers Shakuntala 19-09-2007 G/2 12667 200000/- one partner side, its Kalyansingh partners Mehta's (1)Himmatbhai Kulmukhatyar Mohanbhai Kheni Vallabhbhai Jivanlal Rathi and three others 28. Ms.Vraj Developers Girirajji 19-10-2007 E/2 12675 342000/- one partner side, its Mohansingh partners Mehta's (1)Himmatbhai Kulmukhatyar Mohanbhai Kheni Vallabhbhai Jivanlal Rathi and three others 29. President of 1)Bipinchandra 15-11-2010 284/ 14521 10000000 Vidhyabharti Trust Navinchandra 4A 0/- Jayprakash Chakavala Page 24 of 54 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:19:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/26/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025 undefined Chandrabha and one and seven 284/ others 4B 284/ 4C 284/ 5A 284/ 5B 284/ 5C 30. Ms.Vraj Developers Shyamsundar 30-12-2010 1/J 16430 2000000/- one partner side, its Satyanarayan partners Soni (1)Himmatbhai Mohanbhai Kheni and three others 31. 1)Shri Keyur 1)Meenaben 24-02-2011 6/C 2666 4214000/- Himmatbhai Kheni Ranjitsingh Atodariya and one and two others 32. 1)Shri Keyur Kirtkumar 23-02-2011 6/A 3056 3345000/- Himmatbhai Kheni Ranjitsingh Atodariya and three others 33. Ashokkumar 1)Kailashben 01-07-1998 9880 32400/- Bhagvanbhai Patel Khushalbhai Natha's Widow and six others 34. Jyotindra Dayaram 1)Kailashben 11-04-1994 4428 12960/- Patel Khushalbhai Natha's Widow and six others Page 25 of 54 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:19:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/26/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025 undefined 35. 1)Jagdishbhai Jyotindra 24-07-1997 10497 31111/- Chitubhai Patel Dayaram Patel and one 36. 1)Ramesh 1)Kailashben 06-11-96 13899 41400/- Keshavbhai Patel Khushalbhai Natha's Widow and six others and two others 37. 1)Jagdishbhai 1)Ramesh 24-07-97 10496 75000/- Chitubhai Patel and Keshavbhai one Patel and two others
39. What is interesting to see is that though the aforesaid Sale Deeds
have been challenged right from the year 1964, but the said Sale
Deeds have not been produced before the Trial Court and the
Plaintiff has stated that the said Sale Deeds shall be produced during
the pendency of the suit (while mentioning the said Deeds in
Schedule B).
40. Fulcrum of the Plaintiff’s case is based on the fact that the suit
property belonged to their forefathers i.e. Fakirbhai Motla but there
is no iota of evidence to show that the suit property ever belonged to
Fakirbhai Motla. The Plaintiff has come forward with a case that
after the death Fakirbhai Motla, the property were inherited by his
four sons Gandabhai Fakirbhai, Govindbhai Fakirbhai, Dayalbhai
Fakirbhai and Durlabhbhai Fakirbhai. However, the records
produced along with the Plaint, especially the Revenue Entry No.
283, shows that the suit property was mutated in the name of
Gandabhai Fakirbhai and after his death the property was mutated in
the name of Nandiben Dayalbhai, Balubhai Dayalbhai and minorPage 26 of 54
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:19:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/CRA/26/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
Naginbhai Gopalbhai.
41. Therefore, the fact remains that the said persons whose names were
mutated by revenue entry no. 283 on 25.08.1959 have executed a
Sale Deed in the year 1964 and neither the said revenue entry nor the
Sale Deed executed on 13.07.1964, were ever challenged by the
grandfather of the Plaintiffs. The grandfather of the Plaintiffs had
earlier filed Civil Suit No.1513 of 1985 against Nandiben Dayalbhai
and on the ground that other properties of Gandabhai Fakirbhai have
wrongly been mutated in their name therefore it can be clearly
ascertained that in the year 1985, when the grandfather of the
Plaintiffs filed Civil Suit No.1513 of 1985 on the ground that an
illegal revenue entry no.372 dated 26.08.1959, has been executed
pursuant to the death of Gandabhai Fakirbhai the grandfather of the
Plaintiffs had checked the revenue entries with respect to all the
properties belonging to Gandabhai Fakirbhai and even the
grandfather of the Plaintiffs had not challenged the revenue entry
no.283 dated 25.08.1959 with respect to the suit property. Therefore
it cannot be believed that the Plaintiffs did not have knowledge of
the properties that belong to Gandabhai Fakirbhai and that the names
of Nandiben Dayalbhai, Balubhai Dayalbhai and minor Naginbhai
Gopalbhai were mutated as owner in the revenue records.
Illusory Cause of Action
42. From the aforesaid conspectus of facts, it transpires that the first
Sale Deed that was executed was in the year 1964 and suit was filed
by the grandfather of the Plaintiffs with respect to the property that
Page 27 of 54
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:19:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/26/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
belonged to Gandabhai Fakirbhai and though the suit was filed for
other properties other than the suit property, the grandfather of the
Plaintiffs had not challenged the said Sale Deeds that were executed
in the present suit during his lifetime.
43. There are few important questions, which when posed by a Court
to itself (in given facts of case, as in this one) are self-answering and
self-explanatory. Can a person be allowed to wake from slumber
after a period of 41 years and simply say that it was not within the
knowledge of the party that the suit property was conveyed, re-
conveyed, ‘re-re-conveyed’, ‘re-re-re-conveyed’ and so on? Can a
Court allow such litigation to proceed with impunity and drag along
for another may be 10 or 15 years? To my mind the answer is in the
negative.
44. This is also in view of the well-established propositions of law.
Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again reiterated that such
frivolous litigations must be nipped in the bud. Obviously, the
Plaintiff is going to state that it had no knowledge of the
transactions. However, it is the duty of the Court perusing the Plaint
through the lens of Order VII Rule 11 to scrutinize the same and see
through the clever drafting.
45. If that is not done, the Courts would be acting as a mute spectator
and umpire in a match, which is impermissible. The Court is not
expected to wait till the contest between the parties is over to give its
judgment. In fact, the duty enjoined on a Court is to actively
participate in trials and weed out all the frivolous litigations. No
litigant will come to the Court stating that it has no cause of action.
Page 28 of 54
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:19:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/26/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
However, whether or not the cause of action so pleaded is illusory or
triable must be seen by the Court.
46. In T. Arivanandam v. T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC 467 Hon’ble
Apex Court held that while considering an application under
Order VII Rule 11 CPC what is required to be decided is whether the
plaint discloses a real cause of action, or something purely illusory,
in the following words : (SCC p. 470, para 5)
“5. …The learned Munsif must remember that if on a
meaningful – not formal – reading of the plaint it is
manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not
disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his
power under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC taking care to see
that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if
clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of
action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing …”
47. Therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down principles
where the Court must see through the clever drafting in order to
come at the conclusion of whether the Plaint is a result of an illusory
cause of action or a triable one.
48. Hon’ble Apex Court further in Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji
Bhanusali, (2020) 7 SCC 366 has explained the scope of the powers
under Order VII Rule 11 in detail after considering several
judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court:
Page 29 of 54
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:19:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/26/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
23.3. The underlying object of Order 7 Rule 11(a) is that if
in a suit, no cause of action is disclosed, or the suit is
barred by limitation under Rule 11(d), the court would not
permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the
proceedings in the suit. In such a case, it would be
necessary to put an end to the sham litigation, so that
further judicial time is not wasted.
23.4. In Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi [Azhar Hussain v.
Rajiv Gandhi, 1986 Supp SCC 315. Followed
in Manvendrasinhji Ranjitsinhji Jadeja v. Vijaykunverba,
1998 SCC OnLine Guj 281 : (1998) 2 GLH 823] this Court
held that the whole purpose of conferment of powers under
this provision is to ensure that a litigation which is
meaningless, and bound to prove abortive, should not be
permitted to waste judicial time of the court, in the
following words : (SCC p. 324, para 12)
“12. … The whole purpose of conferment of such
powers is to ensure that a litigation which is
meaningless, and bound to prove abortive should not be
permitted to occupy the time of the court, and exercise
the mind of the respondent. The sword of Damocles
need not be kept hanging over his head unnecessarily
without point or purpose. Even in an ordinary civil
litigation, the court readily exercises the power to
reject a plaint, if it does not disclose any cause of
action.”
23.5. The power conferred on the court to terminate a civil
action is, however, a drastic one, and the conditions
enumerated in Order 7 Rule 11 are required to be strictly
adhered to.
Page 30 of 54
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:19:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/26/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
23.6. Under Order 7 Rule 11, a duty is cast on the court to
determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action by
scrutinising the averments in the plaint [Liverpool &
London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I, (2004) 9
SCC 512] , read in conjunction with the documents relied
upon, or whether the suit is barred by any law.
23.8. Having regard to Order 7 Rule 14 CPC, the
documents filed along with the plaint, are required to be
taken into consideration for deciding the application under
Order 7 Rule 11(a). When a document referred to in the
plaint, forms the basis of the plaint, it should be treated as
a part of the plaint.
23.9. In exercise of power under this provision, the court
would determine if the assertions made in the plaint are
contrary to statutory law, or judicial dicta, for deciding
whether a case for rejecting the plaint at the threshold is
made out.
23.11. The test for exercising the power under Order 7
Rule 11 is that if the averments made in the plaint are
taken in entirety, in conjunction with the documents relied
upon, would the same result in a decree being passed. This
test was laid down in Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn.
Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I [Liverpool & London S.P. & I
Assn. Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I, (2004) 9 SCC 512] which
reads as : (SCC p. 562, para 139)
“139. Whether a plaint discloses a cause of action or
not is essentially a question of fact. But whether it does
or does not must be found out from reading the plaint
itself. For the said purpose, the averments made in the
plaint in their entirety must be held to be correct. The
Page 31 of 54
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:19:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/26/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
test is as to whether if the averments made in the plaint
are taken to be correct in their entirety, a decree would
be passed.”
23.13. If on a meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found
that the suit is manifestly vexatious and without any merit,
and does not disclose a right to sue, the court would be
justified in exercising the power under Order 7 Rule 11
CPC.
23.15. The provision of Order 7 Rule 11 is mandatory in
nature. It states that the plaint “shall” be rejected if any of
the grounds specified in clauses (a) to (e) are made out. If
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
no option, but to reject the plaint.
24.4. If, however, by clever drafting of the plaint, it has
created the illusion of a cause of action, this Court
in Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed
Jalal [Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal,
(2017) 13 SCC 174 : (2017) 5 SCC (Civ) 602] held that it
should be nipped in the bud, so that bogus litigation will
end at the earliest stage. The Court must be vigilant
against any camouflage or suppression, and determine
whether the litigation is utterly vexatious, and an abuse
of the process of the court.
49. Hence, in essence, if the Court is of the opinion that (i) no actual
cause of action exists and the one pleaded is merely illusory or (ii)
there is suppression, camouflage in a litigation that is utterly
vexatious and abuse of process of law or (iii) taking all averments of
the Plaint in its entirety to be true, no decree can be passed or (iv)
Page 32 of 54
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:19:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/26/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
assertions made in the Plaint are contrary to judicial dicta or law,
etc. the Plaint ought to be rejected. It is pertinent to be noted
here that upon arriving at such finding or conclusion, rejection
of the Plaint is not discretionary but in fact, is mandatory.
Deemed Knowledge
50. Having noticed the aforesaid position of law, 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.
51. 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.
52. Originally, Hon’ble Apex Court in Dilboo (Dead) and Ors. vs.
Dhanraji (Dead) and Ors. MANU/SC/3318/2000 held as follows:
Page 33 of 54
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:19:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/26/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
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 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.
53. 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.
54. However, the other side of the position on acquisition of
knowledge is also required to be noticed at this juncture
55. 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
Page 34 of 54
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:19:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/CRA/26/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
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 the
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
Page 35 of 54
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:19:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/26/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
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.
56. 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, original
Defendants 1 and 2, in favour of Jaikrishnabhai
Prabhudas Thakkar or Defendants 3 to 6. They acquired
Page 36 of 54
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:19:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/26/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
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.
57. 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.
58. This position has further been clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in its judgment of Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust and Ors. vs.
Page 37 of 54
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:19:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/26/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
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.
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
Page 38 of 54
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:19:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/26/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
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
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. …
Page 39 of 54
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:19:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/26/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
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
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
Page 40 of 54
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:19:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/CRA/26/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
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
Page 41 of 54
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:19:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/26/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
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
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…
59. 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 IPage 42 of 54
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:19:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/CRA/26/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
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 preventing
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.
Page 43 of 54
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:19:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/26/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
(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.
60. 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 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 diligencePage 44 of 54
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:19:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/CRA/26/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
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, byPage 45 of 54
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:19:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/CRA/26/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
a clever drafting and in order to see that the limitation
period gets frustrated, the suit has been instituted on a sole
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.
61. 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
Page 46 of 54
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:19:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/CRA/26/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
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
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.
62. 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.
63. 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.
64. The present case falls in the category where the Plaintiff has
pleaded a completely illusory and frivolous cause of action. This is
Page 47 of 54
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:19:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/26/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
clear from the following undisputed facts:
i. Plaintiffs claim to be the owner of the property since his
predecessors were the owner thereof.
ii. However, even prima facie, there is no such document or entry
to support the contention that predecessors of the Plaintiff was
the owner of the suit property.
iii. The said predecessors of the Plaintiffs have never during their
lifetime challenged the mutation entry no. 283.
iv. After over 41 years, the stance of the Plaintiff in the suit is that
the suit property ought to have come to share of the Plaintiff
however, they suddenly came to know of all the transactions
that were carried out.
v. Even if the version of the Plaintiffs in the Plaint is taken on
demurrer, it transpires that the Plaintiffs have not duly verified
or had the diligence to verify that an entry has been mutated in
the revenue records of the suit property since the year 1959,
whereas the first sale deed under challenge is of the year 1964.
65. 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.
Article 59 of the Limitation Act
66. In view of the above referred facts Article 59 of Schedule of
Page 48 of 54
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:19:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/26/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
Limitation Act would be required to be considered.
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.
67. 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.
68. In Dahiben (supra) the Court stated as thus:
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.
69. 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.
Page 49 of 54
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:19:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/26/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
70. The present suit is filed after 41 years after the first Sale Deed took
place. It is also required to be considered that during their lifetime,
the grandfather and the father of the Plaintiffs have never challenged
the first Sale Deed executed i.e. 13.07.1964, nor have they
challenged the revenue entry no. 283 dated 25.08.1959.
71. The legal heirs have for the first time come forward with the case
that the suit property belonged to their forefathers and have
challenged the first Sale Deed dated 13.07.1964 and the subsequent
Sale Deeds. From the year 1959 i.e. from the date the revenue entry
no.283 by which the name of the seller of registered Sale Deed dated
13.07.1964 was mutated in the revenue entry, till the year 2015, no
legal proceedings had taken place.
72. Moreover, the grandfather of the Plaintiffs had filed Civil Suit with
respect to the other properties in the year 1985 and during their
lifetime also, they have not filed any suit, challenging the mutation
entry nor the Sale Deed executed in the year 1964. It is not even the
case of the Plaintiffs that after execution of the said Sale Deeds
mentioned at schedule B, the suit property remained in the name of
Gandabhai Fakirbhai in the revenue records and therefore they were
not aware of the said Sale Deeds. This clearly reflects that the
grandfather of the Plaintiff was very much aware that on the death of
Gandabhai Fakirbhai, the names of seller of the Sale Deeds of the
year 1964 have been entered in the revenue record though with
respect to other properties, in view of the said fact the present suit is
clearly time barred.
73. While taking into consideration an Application under Order VII
Page 50 of 54
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:19:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/26/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
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.
74. In the present case, the documents referred to in Schedule B which
are in total 36 Sale Deeds, 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 41 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.
75. The fact also remains that the Plaintiffs have not sought for a relief
to declare them as owners of the property the fact also remains that
there is nothing on record to show that the suit property ever
belonged to Fakirbhai Motala and it is also required to be taken into
consideration that the mutation entry in the year 1959 i.e. mutation
entry no.283 has neither been challenged by the grandfather of the
Plaintiff while filing Civil Suit No.1513 of 1985 whereby they have
challenged the revenue entry no.372 by which other properties
belonging to Gandabhai Fakirbhai were mutated in the name of
Nandiben Dayalbhai, Balubhai Dayalbhai and minor Naginbhai
Gopalbhai.
76. In the present case the suit properties have been transferred by
registered documents and therefore the date of registration becomes
Page 51 of 54
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:19:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/26/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
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.
77. In the present case, the execution of the Sale Deed is not
challenged i.e. it is not the case of the Plaintiff that the sellers of
registered Sale Deed of the year 1964 have not executed the Sale
Deed but the only case is that the suit property belonged to Fakirbhai
Motala and the Plaintiffs being the heirs of Fakirbhai Motala have
right title interest in the property.
78. 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.”
79. 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.
Page 52 of 54
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:19:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/26/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
80. 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
Court has to consider and read in meaningful manner the averments
made in the Plaint and the present suit having been filed challenging
36 Sale Deeds including the first Sale Deed executed in the year
1964 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.
81. 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.
82. 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
Page 53 of 54
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:19:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/26/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
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
knowledge of the Plaintiff. This is clearly is clever drafting and
hence, must be nipped in the bud.
83. Even the Judgements of Daliben (supra) and Chhotanben (supra)
are not applicable in facts of the present case as discussed above.
CONCLUSION
84. 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 41 years in view of the discussion
above.
85. 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 Special Civil Suit No. 234 of 2015 is hereby rejected. Rule is
made absolute.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)
URIL RANA
Page 54 of 54
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:19:13 IST 2025