VIJAY NAMDEO SONAWANE AND ORS.versusKERBA JAGAN SONAWANE AND ORS.

                                                                CRA.729.2023.odt

Ajay

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                  CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 729 OF 2023

       Vijay Namdeo Sonawane and Ors.                  .. Applicants
             Versus
       Kebra Jagan Sonawane and Ors.                   .. Respondents
                                  ....................
        Mr. Sugamdh B. Deshmukh a/w. Mr. Bhushan Gulabrao Deshmukh
          and Mr. Vaibhav Thorave, Advocates for Applicants.
        Mr. M.S. Ansari, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
                                    ......…...........
                                    CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
                                    DATE      : JUNE 12, 2026
       P.C.:
       1.        Heard, Mr. Deshmukh, learned Advocate for Applicants and

       Mr. Ansari, learned Advocate for Respondent No.1.


       2.        Revision Applicants are original Defendant Nos.1,3,5 and 7

       challenging   Order dated 12.09.2023 passed by Joint Civil Judge,

       Junior Division, Baramati in Civil Suit No. 296 of 2021. Respondent

       No.1 is Plaintiff in Suit No. 296 of 2021. Applicants filed Application

       below Exhibit-22 under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure,

       1908 (for short “CPC”) for rejection of Plaint.


       3.        Briefly stated, Mr. Namdeo Umaji Sonawane (father of

       Applicant No.1) purchased one property bearing Gat No.30/6

       admeasuring 36 Ares and another property being 15 Ares in Gat

       No.30/7/A/2 admeasuring 22 Ares (for short “Suit property”) from

       Mr. Kerba Jagan Sonwane i.e. Respondent No.1, vide Sale Deed dated


                                                                          1 of 9
                                                           CRA.729.2023.odt


02.04.1982, duly registered with the Sub-Registrar, Baramati bearing

Serial No. 549/82. Thereafter, name of Mr. Namdeo Umaji Sonawane

came to be mutated in Revenue Records. Thereafter, certain parts of

the Suit property were sold to various individuals, registered deeds

were executed and these transactions were duly recorded in the

Revenue Record.


3.1.      On 07.09.2021, Respondent No.1 filed Regular Civil Suit

No.296 of 2021 seeking declaration that Respondent No.1 is true and

rightful owner of Suit property and sought to restrain Applicants from

creating third party rights in Suit property. Applicants filed their

Written Statement seeking dismissal of the Suit. Thereafter, Applicants

filed Application, below Exhibit- 22, seeking dismissal of Suit Plaint on

the ground that there is no cause of action, the Suit is barred by

limitation as well as under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.


3.2.      Joint   Civil   Judge,   Junior   Division,   Baramati   passed

impugned order dated 12.09.2023, rejecting aforesaid Application on

the ground that Suit Plaint raised mixed questions of facts and law due

to which question of limitation shall be decided after both parties lead

evidence. Being aggrieved, Applicants filed present Civil Revision

Application assailing impugned order dated 12.09.2023.


4.        Mr. Deshmukh, learned Advocate for Applicants would

submit that impugned order is illegal, bad in law and contrary to


                                                                     2 of 9
                                                         CRA.729.2023.odt


provisions of law. He would submit that bare perusal of Suit Plaint in

Suit No. 296 of 2021 would show that no cause of action is made out.

He would submit that entire cause of action pleaded by Respondent

No.1 is illusory and imaginary and that ingenuity in drafting cannot be

permitted to overcome bar of limitation. He would submit that present

Applicant has therefore filed Application under Order VII Rule 11 of

the CPC seeking dismissal of Suit.


4.1.      He would submit that Sale Deed was executed on

02.04.1982 and subsequent Mutation Entries were made on the basis

of the registered Sale Deed therefore Suit is hopelessly barred by

limitation with a delay of 39 years on the face of record and ought to

have been rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. He would

submit that cause of action, if any, arose on 02.04.1982 and came to

an end in 1987 and therefore, no cause of action survived in the Suit.

He would submit that Applicants alongwith Applicant No. 1’s father

were in possession and ownership of Suit property since 1982.


4.2.      He would submit that Trial Court, by its order dated

12.09.2023, erroneously concluded that, considering facts and

circumstances of the case and question of limitation being a mixed

question of facts and law can only be decided after both parties lead

evidence. He would submit that the Trial Court has incorrectly

interpreted and applied the ratio of the judgments of Sharad Sitaramji


                                                                   3 of 9
                                                           CRA.729.2023.odt


Shende v. Nilesh Katariya1 and Sri Bishwanath Banik v. Sulanga Bose

and Ors2 ipso facto to the facts of the present case which prima facie

show delay of 39 years after crystallization of rights in favour of

Applicants.


4.3.         He would submit that Respondent No.1, in his reply to the

application filed under Order VII Rule 11, admits the existence and

execution of Sale Deed dated 02.04.1982. He would submit that the

Trial Court failed to appreciate case of Applicants that Plaintiff had not

only suppressed material facts but had also admitted existence of Sale

Deed No. 549 of 1982, despite pleading to the contrary in Suit Plaint

that no registered document existed in respect of the Suit property. He

would submit that in view of such suppression of material facts by

Respondent No.1, continuation of Suit would amount to abuse of the

process of law.


4.4.         He would submit that Trial Court failed to consider that

Suit is hit by Section 34 of Specific Relief Act inasmuch as Respondent

No.1 did not seek any substantive relief for cancellation of Sale Deed

dated 02.04.1982. He would submit that Respondent No.1 neither

challenged the said Sale Deed nor sought any consequential relief with

respect to possession of the Suit property and hence the impugned

order be quashed and set aside and the Suit be dismissed


1   2023 (1) Mh. L.J.
2   2022 (4) Mh. L.J.

                                                                     4 of 9
                                                        CRA.729.2023.odt


consequentially.


5.        PER CONTRA, Mr. Ansari, learned Advocate appearing for

Respondent No.1, would submit that Respondent No.1 never executed

any Sale Deed in favour of the father of Applicant No.1 in respect of

the Suit property.


5.1.      He would submit that Respondent No.1 had made enquiries

with the office of the Sub-Registrar and nearby registration offices,

however, no information was furnished to him. He would submit that

upon obtaining 7/12 extracts pertaining to Suit property, he gained

knowledge that father of Applicant No.1 had fraudulently caused

transfer of the Suit property in his favour in collusion with the

Revenue Officers.


5.2.      He would submit that Suit came to be instituted in the year

2021 immediately after cause of action arose and therefore is well

within the prescribed period of limitation. He would submit that plain

reading of the Suit Plaint demonstrates that Suit property originally

belonged to and continued to remain in possession of Respondent

No.1.


5.3.      He would submit that father of Applicant No.1 took undue

advantage of Respondent No.1’s illiteracy and caused the Suit property

to be transferred in his own name without knowledge and consent of

Respondent No.1. He would submit that Applicants obtained Mutation

                                                                  5 of 9
                                                           CRA.729.2023.odt


Entry No. 7839 in the year 1982 in collusion with Revenue Authorities

and thereafter transferred portions of the suit property to third parties.

He would submit that limitation in the present facts is therefore a

mixed question of facts and law and hence urges to confirm the

impugned order.


6.        I have heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties and

with their able assistance perused the record of the case. Submissions

made by learned advocates at the bar have received due consideration

of the bench.    I have perused the plaint in Suit No. 296 of 2021

appended at page No.64 of the Civil Revision Application.


7.        At the outset, principal point for determination is whether

Suit No. 296 of 2021 is barred by limitation. It is evident from the

record that a Sale Deed came to be executed between the father of

Applicant No.1 and Respondent No.1 on 02.04.1982, which was

registered bearing Registration No. 549/82. Consequent thereto,

Mutation Entry No. 7839 came to be effected in the Revenue records

in the name of Mr. Namdeo Umaji Sonawane. Though Respondent

No.1 has disowned these facts, the transaction document is placed on

record and the Mutation Entry corroborates the same. Hence denial

made by Respondent No.1 of above facts and case of collusion with

Revenue Authorities for effecting Mutation Entry in 1982 is on the face

of record false and unbelievable.


                                                                     6 of 9
                                                          CRA.729.2023.odt


8.        It is seen that Applicants have remained in possession and

enjoyment of the suit property for nearly 39 years without any

objection, challenge or assertion of rights by Respondent No.1. The

contention that cause of action arose only in the year 2021 therefore

cannot be accepted. Once Sale Deed stood executed and registered in

the year 1982, any challenge thereto ought to have been initiated

within the prescribed period of limitation. The cause of action,

therefore, arose at the earliest point in time upon execution and

registration of the Sale Deed and not after the lapse of nearly four

decades. Consequently, the suit appears to be ex facie barred by

limitation.


9.        It is further seen that Respondent No.1, having remained

silent for almost 39 years, approached this Court alleging fraud.

However, apart from making bald/unsubstantiated allegations,

Respondent No.1 has failed to place on record any material indicating

even prima facie commission of fraud by Applicants. The pleadings do

not disclose any specific acts, particulars or circumstances constituting

fraud. There is nothing on record to show that there was any collusion

between Applicant and Revenue Officers as contended by Mr. Ansari.


10.       It is seen that long-standing revenue entries, made pursuant

to registered documents executed between parties, carry considerable

evidentiary value for determining the date of its knowledge. The


                                                                    7 of 9
                                                             CRA.729.2023.odt


contention by Mr. Ansari that Respondent No.1 acquired knowledge

only upon conducting an enquiry in the year 2021 and thereafter

instituted the Suit, cannot, in view of this Court, defeat law of

limitation. Prima facie, the Suit is clearly barred by limitation.


11.       This Court further finds merit in the contention of Applicants

that Plaintiff has sought declaration of ownership without seeking

appropriate substantive relief of cancellation of the registered Sale

Deed dated 02.04.1982 and in absence of such challenge, prayers in

the Suit Plaint are barred by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act,

1963.


12.       It is seen that Trial Court has simplicitor proceeded on the

premise that limitation is a mixed question of law and facts and

therefore, since Defendants/Applicants had sought rejection of Suit

Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 on the ground of limitation, Suit could

not be dismissed prior to recording evidence. The Trial Court further

has observed that the Plaintiff/Respondent No.1 denied existence of

any Sale Deed or registered document and that, for deciding

application under Order VII Rule 11, only averments in Suit Plaint are

to be considered. However, this does not imply that documents placed

on record must be ignored. In the present case, Sale deed placed on

record and Mutation Entries are recorded on the basis of this

registered Sale Deed. When a Suit is instituted after a lapse of nearly


                                                                       8 of 9
                                                                       CRA.729.2023.odt


       39 years, without any explanation and long-standing public revenue

       record reflects the transaction, Suit Plaint becomes liable to rejection.

       Trial Court unreasoned order on these aspects does not inspire any

       confidence of this Court. Consequently, the impugned order cannot be

       sustained.


       13.               In the above circumstances, Trial Court has erred in holding

       that limitation in the present facts and circumstances of the case was a

       mixed question of facts and law requiring trial. No ambiguity arises

       from the pleadings at all. Perusal of the Suit Plaint would show that

       Suit is ex facie barred by limitation and therefore under provisions of

       Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the CPC it ought to have been

       dismissed.


       14.               Accordingly, in view of above observations and findings

       impugned Order dated 12.09.2023 is quashed and set aside.

       Resultantly, Application under Exhibit – 22 stands allowed. Plaint in

       Regular Civil Suit No.296 of 2021 stands rejected under Order VII

       Rule 11(a) and (d) of the CPC.


       15.               Civil Revision Application No. 729 of 2023 stands allowed

       and disposed of.


                                                        [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
                  Digitally signed
Ajay              by AJAY
                  TRAMBAK
       AJAY
       TRAMBAK    UGALMUGALE
       UGALMUGALE Date:
                  2026.06.12
                  12:11:11 +0530




                                                                                 9 of 9