Bombay High Court
MRS.ANGELINE BABU NIMMA AND ORS.versusTHE COLLECTOR MSD, MUMBAI STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- SHARMILA U DESHMUKH
Holding
The plaint is barred by limitation and the appeal is dismissed.
Summary
The plaintiffs, heirs of the late Anthony Joseph Misquitta, filed a suit seeking a declaration that the 1960 Agreement for Sale and the 1963 Deed of Sale were forged and therefore void, along with related injunctions. They relied on a handwriting expert's opinion dated 25 September 1997 that the signatures were forged. The defendants, including Panom Developer LLP, moved to dismiss the suit under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC on the ground of limitation. The trial court held that the cause of action accrued on the date of the expert opinion in 1997, invoking Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and dismissed the plaint as time‑barred. On appeal, the High Court affirmed the trial court’s reasoning, confirming that the suit was barred by limitation and dismissing the appeal, while also disposing of the interim application.
Issues considered
- The suit is barred by limitation under Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
- When does the cause of action accrue – at the date of knowledge of forgery (1997) or upon later legal advice (2014)?
- Whether Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC permits dismissal of a plaint on the ground of limitation based solely on the pleadings.
- The survivability of the interim application.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order VII Rule 11(d)
- Limitation Act, 1963 — s. Article 58, Article 59
Subjects
- limitation
- Order VII Rule 11
- declaration
- forgery
- cause of action
- civil suit
- property dispute
- real estate
- slum rehabilitation
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:30618
FA-472-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO.472 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3354 OF 2026
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO.472 OF 2026
1. Mrs. Angeline Babu Nimma
Aged 71 yrs. Occupation : Tutor
2. Mr. Gilory Anthony Misquitta
Aged 68 yrs. Occupation: Service
3. Mrs. Racheal Hillary Misquitta
Aged 60 yrs. Occupation: Housewife
4. Mr. Shaun Hillary Misquitta
Aged 37 yrs. Occupation : service
5. Mr. Regan Hillary Misquitta
Aged 36 yrs. Occupation: service
All 1 to 5 residing at House No.52 St.
Francis Road, Vile Parle (West),
Mumbai-400 056
6. Mr. Troy Thomos Gowria
Aged 48 yrs. Occupation: Jobless
7. Ms. Olinka Thomos Gowria
(since deceased) died on 27-01-2026
8. Mr. Trevor Thomos Gowria
Aged 54 yrs. Occupation : service
9. Mrs. Priya Maruti Patil
Aged 56 yrs. Occupation : service
SQ Pathan 1/15
FA-472-2026.doc
All 6 to 9 Indian adult Inhabitants …Appellants
residing at House No.126. St. Braz Road, (Org. PlaintiCs)
Vile Parle (West), Mumbai-400 056
Versus
1. The Collector MSD, Mumbai
State of Maharashtra, 10th Floor,
Administrative Building
2. SRA (Slum Rehabilitation Authority),
SRA Building, Anant Kanekar Marg,
Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051
3. MCGM
Corporate body functioning under
MCGM Act, K/East Ward, MCGM Building,
Azad Road, Gundavali, Andheri (E),
Mumbai-400 069
4. Panom Developer LLP,
Partnership Firm Regd. under the LLP Act, 2008
Through their authorized Signatory No.
(1) Bharat J.Patel, (2) Dilip C. Modi &
(3) P.U.C. Shah and Also attorneys of Defendant
No.5 to 18 Nainesh Gandhi, K.R.D.N. Estate,
2nd Floor, OC Aarey Road, Goregaon (East)
5. Mr. Lalit Ramdev Mishra
Age & Occ. Not Known
6. Atmadev Ramdev Mishra
Age & Occ. Not Known
7. Mr. Dinesh Ramdev Mishra
Age & Occ. Not Known
8. Mr. Ashok Ramdev Mishra
Age & Occ. Not Known
9. Mr. Anil Ramdev Mishra
Age & Occ. Not Known
SQ Pathan 2/15
FA-472-2026.doc
10. Mr. Lolarkh Matadin Mishra
Age & Occ. Not Known
11. Mr. Ramesh Matadin Mishra
Age & Occ.: Not Known
12. Mr. Vasant Matadin Mishra
Age & Occ. Not Known
13. Mrs. Durgadevi Lalji Pandey
Age & Occ. Not Known
14. Mrs. Kamladevi Vishwanath Dubey
Age & Occ. Not Known
15. Mrs. Gulabdevi Maheshnarayan Pandey
Age & Occ. Not Known
16. Mr. Rajkumar Ramkrishna Tiwari
Age & Occ. Not Known
17. Mrs. Shivdevi Radheyshyam Shukla
Age & Occ. Not Known
18. Mrs. Usha Kripashankar Tiwari
...Respondents
Serial No. 3 to 16 residing at (Org. Defendants)
Bhagvanji Building, 40-A Room No.5 & 6
Old Nagardas Road, Andheri(East)
Mumbai-400 069
——————
Mr. Suresh K. Mali for the Appellants/Applicants
Mr. Amogh Singh i/b Mr. Vijay Sharma for the Respondent No.4
——————
CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : JULY 27, 2026
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard. Admit. By consent, taken up for Hnal hearing forthwith.
SQ Pathan 3/15
FA-472-2026.doc
2. The First Appeal is at the instance of the original PlaintiCs being
aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated 16 th January
2026 passed by the City Civil Court at Borivali Division at Dindoshi,
Mumbai, in Notice of Motion No. 3570 of 2018 under Order VII Rule
11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short `the CPC’),
rejecting the plaint in L.C. Suit No. 2111 of 2014.
3. L.C. Suit No. 2111 of 2014 was Hled seeking a declaration that
the Defendants cannot interfere in the use and occupation of the suit
premises, create third-party rights, and cannot submit the property for
development, obtain consent of tenants/occupants in respect of the
suit premises, i.e., land bearing Old Survey No. 32, Hissa No. 14, of
Revenue Village Vile Parle, Taluka Andheri, Mumbai, admeasuring
about 547.8 square metres. The plaint also sought a declaration that
the Deed dated 11th April 1963 and the Agreement for Sale dated 9th
June 1960 between Anthony Joseph Misquitta and Matadin Mangal
Mishra and Ramdev Mangal Mishra are null and void and consequently,
the Conveyance Deed registered with respect to Schedule IV is also null
and void, and the Defendants do not get any right in the suit property
and permanent injunction.
4. An application under Order VII Rule 11 was Hled by the
Defendant No. 4 seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule
11(b) and (d). In the aJdavit in support of the Notice of Motion, it was
SQ Pathan 4/15
FA-472-2026.doc
pleaded that the suit is barred by the law of limitation, as the PlaintiCs
are challenging documents executed in the year 1963, and the
pleadings in the plaint show that the PlaintiCs had knowledge of the
said documents since more than 17 years. An objection was also raised
on the ground of valuation.
5. The application came to be resisted by the PlaintiCs, contending
that the cause of action arose on 20 th July 2014 when, on the basis of
the appeal dismissal order dated 30th April 2014, the PlaintiCs obtained
legal advice to Hle a civil suit. Insofar as the valuation is concerned, it
was pleaded that the PlaintiCs have properly valued the suit. It was
further pleaded that the suit had been Hled in August 2014 and after a
period of four years, the Notice of Motion was Hled seeking dismissal,
which is without merit.
6. The Trial Court, by order dated 16 th January 2026, framed the
necessary issue as to whether, from the statements in the plaint, the
suit appears to be barred by law. The Trial Court, upon perusal of the
plaint and its annexures, noted that the sum and substance of the
PlaintiCs' case is that the Agreement for Sale dated 9th June 1960 and
the registered document dated 11th April 1963 do not bear the
signature of their father, Anthony Misquitta, and that no consideration
was received by their father. It further noted that the PlaintiCs had
come up with the case that the documents are forged, by reason of
SQ Pathan 5/15
FA-472-2026.doc
which Matadin Mishra and Ramdev Mishra did not get a valid title to
the suit property, and resultantly neither to Defendant No. 4. It noted
the pleadings in paragraph 15 of the plaint that the documents dated
9th June 1960 and 11th April 1963 were examined by a handwriting
expert, whose opinion dated 25th September 1997 was that both
documents do not bear the signature of Anthony Misquitta and expert
opinion appended to the plaint to hold that the PlaintiCs had
knowledge that the documents are forged and the right to sue accrued
on 25th September 1997. It opined that the legal advice received by the
PlaintiCs cannot postpone the cause of action, and accordingly held
that the plaint is barred by limitation under Articles 58 and 59 of the
Limitation Act, 1963.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellants would submit that
the PlaintiCs were pursuing proceedings before the revenue
authorities and the cause of action accrued on 30 th May 2012, when it
was ordered by the City Survey OJcer that, for claiming the ownership
rights in the suit property, the Civil Court is to be approached. He
submits that the opinion obtained by the PlaintiCs in 1997 was only in
respect of the forgery and the same cannot constitute cause of action
for Hling the suit. He would submit that the entire plaint has to be
read, which would show that a fraud has been committed, as on the
basis of the forged documents, the suit property has been transferred
SQ Pathan 6/15
FA-472-2026.doc
Hrst to Matadin Mishra and Ramdev Mishra and thereafter to the
Defendant No. 4. He would further submit that the application under
Order VII Rule 11 seeking rejection of the plaint came to be Hled after
a period of four years by Defendant No. 4 who has no right, title or
interest in the suit property. He would further point out pleadings in
paragraph 7 of the plaint denying right of Defendant No. 4 in the suit
property.
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.4
would draw attention of the Court to the pleadings in the plaint, and in
particular paragraph 15 of the plaint, which speaks of the opinion
having been obtained in the year 1997. He would further point out that
the opinion is annexed as Exhibit "J" to the plaint, which makes a
reference to the photocopy of the Indenture dated 11 th April 1963. He
submits that the PlaintiCs were, therefore, aware of the document
dated 11th April 1963, in respect of which the relief is now being sought
in the year 2014 by the PlaintiCs. He submits that under Articles 58 and
59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation commences
from the date on which the right to sue Hrst accrues and in the present
case, as PlaintiCs acquired knowledge of the Deed of 1963, at least in
the year 1997, the right to sue Hrst accrued. He submits that, as the
bar of limitation is evident on the face of the plaint, the suit has been
rightly rejected. In support, he relies upon the following decisions:
SQ Pathan 7/15
FA-472-2026.doc
i. Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra)1
ii. Raghwendra Sharan Singh vs. Ram Prasanna Singh
(Dead) by LRs2
9. The point which arises for determination is whether the plaint is
liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) as being barred by law
of limitation.
10. It is well settled that, for the purpose of adjudicating an
application under Order VII Rule 11, it is only the averments in the
plaint and the documents annexed to the plaint which are germane.
The plaint has to be read in a meaningful manner in order to ascertain
whether it is barred by law, which includes the law of limitation. The
substantive relief sought by the PlaintiCs was a declaration that the
registered Sale Deed dated 11th April 1963 and the Agreement for Sale
dated 9th June 1960 between Anthony Joseph Misquitta and Matadin
Mangal Mishra and Ramdev Mangal Mishra are null and void. The other
reliefs were consequential to the grant of the declaration about the
indentures being null and void. The case set forth in the plaint is that
the PlaintiCs are the legal heirs of Anthony Joseph Misquitta, who
owned the suit property through his predecessors. Paragraph 7 of the
plaint pleads about the Agreement for Sale dated 26th May 1960,
alleged to have been signed and executed by the PlaintiCs' father on
1 (2020) 7 SCC 366
2 Civil Appeal/2960/2019 decided on 13/03/2019
SQ Pathan 8/15
FA-472-2026.doc
9th June 1960 in favour of Matadin Mangal Mishra and Ramdev Mangal
Mishra, which is a forged and fabricated document and consequently,
the execution of the conveyance by Defendants Nos. 5 to 18 in respect
of the suit premises is null and void. It is pleaded that the Defendants
succeeded before the Konkan Division Commissioner on the basis of
the Conveyance Deed dated 13th January 2011 and thereafter, the
PlaintiCs have approached the Civil Court for appropriate order and
declaration that the registered Deed dated 11 th April 1963, the
Agreement dated 9th June 1960 and the Conveyance Deed dated 13 th
January 2011 are null and void. Paragraph 15 of the plaint reads as
under:
“15. The plaintiCs state that since they did not have the
copy of the conveyance Deed back then. But along with
the copy of the index II, which contained the forged
signature of Mr. Anthony Joseph Misquitta, the plaintiCs
went ahead and had appointed a handwriting Expert Mr.
Mahesh Wagh, Examiner of Document, Addl. Chief State
Examiner of Document, CID having his address at 15-H
Ambe Wadi, Girgaum Road, Mumbai :- 400 004, to verify
the signature on the said document i.e. the agreement for
sale dated 9th June 1960 and the deed of conveyance
dated 11th April 1963 Mr. Wagh after perusing many
documents having signature of Mr. Anthony Joseph
Misquitta has given his written opinion dated 25 th
September, 1997. Annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit
“J” is the copy of the said opinion given by Mr. Mahesh
Wagh.”
11. The cause of action is pleaded in paragraph 45 to have arisen on
20th July 2014, when the PlaintiCs obtained legal advice that the
SQ Pathan 9/15
FA-472-2026.doc
revenue record would not suJce and that a Civil Suit was required to
be Hled. To the plaint is annexed the opinion of the handwriting expert
dated 25th September 1997, which is referred to in paragraph 15 of the
plaint. The opinion records that the expert had examined the
questioned signatures of Anthony Joseph Misquitta on the xerox copy
of the Indenture dated 11th April 1963 and, upon comparison with the
standard signatures, was of the opinion that the questioned signature
was not written by the writer of the standard signatures. It is,
therefore, the PlaintiCs' own case that a photocopy of the Indenture
dated 11th April 1963 was available with them and was submitted to
the handwriting expert, who gave his opinion in the year 1997. The
execution of the Indenture of 1963 was, therefore, within the
knowledge of the PlaintiCs in the year 1997.
12. The pleadings in the plaint is that the father of Defendants Nos.
5 to 18, i.e., the legal heirs of Matadin Mishra and Ramdev Mishra, had
prepared forged and fabricated documents and got them registered on
11th April 1963, who did not have any right in the suit premises and as
the Defendant No. 4 claims through Defendants Nos. 5 to 18,
Defendant No. 4 also does not have any right, title or interest in the
suit premises. The pleadings of forgery are based on the expert
opinion obtained in the year 1997. The relief sought is a declaration
that the deeds are forged and fabricated. Therefore, the limitation
SQ Pathan 10/15
FA-472-2026.doc
under Article 58 of Limitation Act, 1963 is triggered when the right to
sue Hrst accrued. Article 58 uses the expression “Hrst accrued”, which
would be the date of acquiring knowledge of existence of the alleged
forged documents.
13. The documents of 1960, 1963 and 2011 are sought to be
challenged in the year 2014 based on an illusory cause of action of
legal advice. Before this Court, the submission canvassed was that the
cause of action had arisen upon the order passed by the City Survey
OJcer directing the PlaintiCs to approach the Civil Court for
adjudication of their civil rights in respect of the suit premises. It is not
the order of the survey oJcer which would give rise to a cause of
action to the PlaintiCs to Hle the suit, but the knowledge of the Deed
of 1963, in the year 1997, which would trigger the period of limitation.
The suit, which has been Hled in the year 2014, is ex facie barred by
limitation upon a reading of the plaint and the documents appended
thereto.
14. It is well settled that an application under Order VII Rule 11 of
CPC can be Hled at any stage of the proceedings. It is also no answer to
say that the Defendant No. 4 had no right to Hle the application, as the
Defendant No. 4 claims title through the Deed of Conveyance which is
sought to be assailed by the PlaintiCs and Defendant No.4 has been
impleaded as a party.
SQ Pathan 11/15
FA-472-2026.doc
15. In the case of Nusli Neville Wadia v. Ivory Properties & Ors.3,
one of the issues which was considered by the three-Judge Bench of
the Hon’ble Apex Court was regarding limitation being a mixed
question of law and fact in the context of provisions of Order VII Rule
11 of the CPC. It was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that it cannot be
laid down as a proposition of law under Order 7 Rule 11(d) that a plaint
cannot be rejected as barred by limitation. It further held that it is
permissible to do so in a case where the plaint averment itself indicates
the cause of action to be barred by law of limitation and no further
evidence is required to adjudicate the issue. It noted that the plaint
has to be rejected, if any law bars it as per the averments made in the
plaint.
16. In the case of Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra)
(supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in paragraph 23.14 that the
power under Order VII Rule 11 may be exercised by the Court at any
stage of the suit. It further held in paragraphs 25, 26, 27 and 28 as
under:
“25. The Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes a time-limit for
the institution of all suits, appeals, and applications. Section
2(j) deHnes the expression "period of limitation" to mean the
period of limitation prescribed in the Schedule for suits,
appeals or applications. Section 3 lays down that every suit
instituted after the prescribed period, shall be dismissed
even though limitation may not have been set up as a
3 (2020) 6 SCC 557
SQ Pathan 12/15
FA-472-2026.doc
defence. If a suit is not covered by any speciHc article, then it
would fall within the residuary article.
26. Articles 58 and 59 of the Schedule to the 1963 Act,
prescribe the period of limitation for Hling a suit where a
declaration is sought, or cancellation of an instrument, or
rescission of a contract, which reads as under:
“Description of suit Period of Time from which
limitation period begins to run
58. To obtain any other Three years When the right to sue
declaration. Hrst accrues.
59. To cancel or set Three years When the facts
aside an instrument or entitling the plaintiC
decree or for the to have the instrument
rescission of a contract. or decree cancelled or
set aside or the
contract rescinded
Hrst become known to
him.”
The period of limitation prescribed under Articles 58 and 59
of the 1963 Act is three years, which commences from the
date when the right to sue Hrst accrues.
27. In Khatri Hotels (P) Ltd. v. Union of India-(2011) 9 SCC
126, this Court held that the use of the word "Hrst" 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 Hrst
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 Hrst
accrued.
28. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v.
Gurdev Singh-(1991) 4 SCC 1 : 1991 SCC (L and S) 1082, held
that the Court must examine the plaint and determine when
the right to sue Hrst accrued to the plaintiC, and whether on
the assumed facts, the plaint is within time. The words "right
to sue" mean the right to seek relief by means of legal
SQ Pathan 13/15
FA-472-2026.doc
proceedings. The right to sue accrues only when the cause of
action arises. The suit must be instituted when the right
asserted in the suit is infringed, or when there is a clear and
unequivocal threat to infringe such right by the defendant
against whom the suit is instituted. Order 7 Rule 11(d)
provides that where a suit appears from the averments in
the plaint to be barred by any law, the plaint shall be
rejected.”
17. Applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court to the
facts of the present case, the PlaintiCs have pleaded that in respect of
the Indenture dated 11th April 1963, the PlaintiCs had obtained the
handwriting expert's written opinion on 25 th September 1997. It is not
the obtaining of legal advice in the year 2014 which would constitute
cause of action for Hling the suit, but the knowledge of the document
being a forged document on 25 th September 1997 which infringes the
PlaintiCs’ right claimed in the suit property and gives rise to cause of
action. By pleading an illusory cause of action of obtaining legal advice,
the suit has been Hled in an attempt to overcome the bar of limitation.
18. The pleadings in the plaint make it clear that the suit is barred by
the law of limitation, as it seeks to challenge the Indentures of 1960
and 1963 in the year 2014. The period of three years for the purpose of
limitation will have to be computed from the date of knowledge of the
PlaintiCs, i.e., in the year 1997. The suit is hopelessly barred by
limitation.
SQ Pathan 14/15
FA-472-2026.doc
19. The Trial Court has examined the pleadings in the plaint, the
documents produced, and, in particular, the expert opinion dated 25 th
September 1997, to hold that the right to sue Hrst accrued to the
PlaintiCs on 25th September 1997, and the cause of action arose on 25 th
September 1997. The Trial Court has rightly held that the suit is barred
by limitation and rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the
CPC.
20. In light of the discussion above, the plaint is liable to be rejected
under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC, being barred by limitation.
Resultantly, the First Appeal fails and stands dismissed.
21. Interim Application does not survive for consideration and is
disposed of.
[SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.]
SQ Pathan 15/15
Signed by: Sanjay A. Mandawgad
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 27/07/2026 14:50:33
Checking your session…