DALIBEN VALJIBHAI & ORS.versusPRAJAPATI KODARBHAI KACHRABHAI & ANR.

         [2024] 12 S.C.R. 2123 : 2024 INSC 1049

                Daliben Valjibhai & Ors.
                           v.
         Prajapati Kodarbhai Kachrabhai & Anr.
                (Civil Appeal No. 14293 of 2024 )
                         11 December 2024
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Manoj Misra, JJ.]


                      Issue for Consideration
 Whether a suit for cancellation of a registered sale deed, filed
 within three years from the date of knowledge as alleged in the
 plaint, can be dismissed at the threshold under Order 7 Rule 11 of
 the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on the ground that it is barred
 by limitation.

                             Headnotes†
 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (“CPC”) – Order 7 Rule 11 – In
 2017, appellants/ plaintiffs filed a suit for cancellation of
 alleged registered sale deed dated 04.12.2004 on grounds of
 fraud – Trial Court dismissed suit under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC
 on the ground of limitation – First Appellate Court reversed
 the decision – In second appeal, High Court reinstated Trial
 Court’s decision – Order challenged – Appeal allowed – High
 Court not justified in allowing the application under Order 7
 Rule 11 on issues not evident from the plaint averments –
 High Court has drawn inferences that were only possible after
 a trial – Judgment of First Appellate Court restored – Trial
 Court to take up suit and dispose it of as expeditiously as
 possible:
 Held: In 2017, appellants/plaintiffs instituted a suit for cancellation
 of alleged registered sale deed dated 04.12.2004 conveying
 the plaint scheduled property in favour of the respondents/
 defendants – It was alleged that sale deed was fraudulently
 obtained and the appellants/plaintiffs came to know of it only
 on 31.03.2017, when the Deputy Collector issued notice
 on defendant’s application for correcting revenue entries –
 Respondents/defendants filed application for rejection of plaint
 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC claiming that suit was barred by
2124                                                      [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


    limitation – Trial Court allowed application under Order 7 Rule
    11 and dismissed suit as barred by limitation – First Appellate
    Court reversed the decision holding that limitation is a mixed
    question of law and fact, and plaintiffs had alleged they became
    aware of the fraud only in 2017 – Only relevant material for
    disposing application under Order 7 Rule 11 are facts mentioned
    in the plaint, not defendants’ contentions – The High Court vide
    impugned order reinstated Trial Court’s decision holding that
    the suit was barred by limitation and the plaint did not include
    essential particulars of alleged fraud – Appeal against impugned
    order allowed – Held, High Court drew inferences possible only
    after trial even while recording the principle that operation and
    impact of Order 7 Rule 11, being a drastic remedy, Courts must
    adhere to the discipline of confining their scrutiny to the plaint
    averments – High Court carried away by the fact that the suit was
    filed 13 years after the execution of sale deed – No justification
    for allowing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 on issues that
    were not evident from the plaint averments.
    Reliance placed on P.V. Guru Raj Reddy v. P. Neeradha Reddy –
    Only if the averments in plaint ex facie do not disclose a cause
    of action or on a reading thereof the suit appears to be barred
    under any law the plaint can be rejected – At the stage of
    consideration of the application under Order 7 Rule 11, the stand
    of the defendants in the written statement would be altogether
    irrelevant. [Paras 2-9, 11]

    Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 59 – Registration Act, 1908 –
    High Court in impugned order held that once a document is
    registered under the Registration Act, the date of registration
    becomes the date of deemed knowledge – Held, High Court
    not justified in holding that the limitation period commences
    from the date of registration itself – Limitation will arise from
    date of knowledge:
    Held: High Court correctly concluded that under Article 59,
    Limitation Act, a suit can be instituted within 3 years of the
    knowledge – However, it found knowledge must be presumed
    from date of registration under Registration Act – High Court not
    justified in holding that the limitation period commences from date
    of registration itself – Reliance placed on Chhotanben v. Kirtibhai
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                           2125

   Daliben Valjibhai & Ors. v. Prajapati Kodarbhai Kachrabhai & Anr.


     Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar – Held that limitation in such cases will
     arise from date of knowledge. [Paras 10, 12-13]

     Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – s.100 – Reversal of the judgment
     of the first Appellate Court on facts impermissible:
     Held: High Court was examining the issue while exercising
     jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC and as such reversal of the
     judgment of the First Appellate Court on facts was impermissible.
     [Para 14]

                              Case Law Cited
     P.V. Guru Raj Reddy v. P. Neeradha Reddy [2015] 1 SCR 1108 :
     (2015) 8 SCC 331; Chhotanben v. Kirtibhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar
     [2018] 3 SCR 422 : (2018) 6 SCC 422 – relied on.

                                List of Acts
     Civil Procedure Code, 1908; Limitation Act, 1963; Registration
     Act, 1908.

                             List of Keywords
     Order 7 Rule 11 CPC; Rejection of plaint; Limitation Act, Article
     59; Fraud; Date of knowledge; Date of registration; Reversal on
     facts; Powers of appellate court.

                            Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 14293 of 2024
     From the Judgment and Order dated 26.06.2024 of the High Court
     of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in R/SA No. 53 of 2024

                         Appearances for Parties
     Nikhil Goel, Sr. Adv., Pradhuman Gohil, Mrs. Taruna Singh Gohil,
     Alapati Sahithya Krishna, Ms. Hetvi K. Patel, Rushabh N. Kapadia,
     Siddharth Singh, Ms. Siddhi Gupta, Advs. for the Appellants.
     Dr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan, Sr. Adv., Jigar Gadhvi, Dharita Malkan,
     Alok Kumar, Rajesh Udit Singh, Ms. Khushboo Aakash Sheth,
     Advs. for the Respondents.
2126                                                      [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                Judgment

1.   Leave granted.
2.   The appellants, as plaintiffs, instituted a suit for cancellation of an
     alleged registered sale deed dated 04.12.2004 said to have been
     executed by them conveying the plaint scheduled property in favour
     of the respondents/defendants on 10.04.2017. They have alleged
     that the said sale deed was brought about through fraudulent means
     and the plaintiffs came to know of it only on 31.03.2017, when the
     Deputy Collector issued notice to the appellants on an application
     filed by the defendants for correcting the revenue entries. After
     receiving the said notice, the appellants claim to have applied and
     obtained a certified copy of the alleged sale deed and having realised
     thereafter that their signatures were forged, they instituted the suit
     on 18.04.2017 for a declaration and cancellation of the sale deed.
3.   Within one month of the institution of the suit, the defendants filed
     an application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC, for rejection of plaint
     on two grounds; the first being that the plaintiffs have not joined
     the Sub-Registrar as the defendant no. 2 and that the mandatory
     notice under Section 80 CPC was not given. We are not concerned
     with this ground. The second ground for rejection of the plaint which
     has given rise to the present litigation is that the suit is barred by
     limitation as the registered sale deed was executed on 04.12.2004
     and the suit came to be filed only on 10.04.2017, i.e. after a period
     of 13 years.
4.   The Trial Court took up the said application under Order 7 Rule 11,
     and by its order dated 26.04.2018 allowed the same and dismissed
     the suit on the following grounds:
          “After going through the Sale deed vide mark 4/1 it is
          crystal clear that the sale deed have been carried out in
          favour of the Defendant on Prajapati Kodarbhai Kachrabhai
          in the year 2004 and the present suit has been filed after
          a delay of 13 years. Further the defendant have rightly
          relied on the ratio laid down in the case of Kamal Gupta
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                            2127

     Daliben Valjibhai & Ors. v. Prajapati Kodarbhai Kachrabhai & Anr.


              v/s Uma Gupta in para 31,32,33 wherein the Hon’ble
              Court have held that the plaintiff have filed the present
              suit after a delay of 16 years and limitation would also
              apply: The said decision squarely applies to the present
              case as the present suit has been filed after a period of
              13 years and to challenge the Sale deed the period of
              limitation as prescribed in the Limitation Act is of 3 years
              has lapsed. The plaintiff have filed the present suit after
              a delay of 13 years and as such is beyond the period of
              limitation Further the plaintiff were well aware of the Sale
              deed from the year 2004. The suit is not maintainable
              and required to be rejected in terms of provisions under
              Order 7 Rule 11.”
5.     The appeal filed by the appellants was considered by the Principal
       Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur and by its judgment dated
       17.10.2023 allowed the appeal on the ground that;
       (i)    The contentions raised in the plaint are that the appellants came
              to know of the alleged sale deed of 2004 only in the year 2017
              when they received notice from the Deputy Collector.
       (ii)   It is also alleged that the signatures and thumb impression on
              the document were not of the plaintiffs. They allege that the
              plaintiff’s signatures and photographs were forged and they
              were never present at the place when registration took place.
              The relevant portion of the plaint extracted herein below, was
              recorded in the order:
                   “4. That the defendants have made false sale deed
                   on 4.12.2004 of the aforesaid ancestral land of
                   the plaintiffs by doing false signatures and thumb
                   impressions and the same is registered vide
                   Registered Sale deed No.1643 at Sub Registrar
                   office at Danta. That the plaintiffs have obtained the
                   True copy of the aforesaid false Sale deed from Sub
                   Registrar office at Danta on 10.04.2017 and looking
                   to the same in the said document the plaintiffs have
                   not made their signatures or also not produced any
                   photographs or Identity card of the plaintiffs. At the
2128                                                      [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


                same time on the stamp paper which is produced,
                the same is also not purchased by the plaintiffs. That
                the plaintiffs never remained present before the Sub
                Registrar office at Danta, though the defendants by
                using their illegal influence registered this false and
                fabricated sale deed in the Sub Registrar office.”
     (iii) The final determination as to whether the claim is barred by
           time or not, can be decided only after considering the evidence
           led by the parties as limitation is always a mixed question of
           law and fact. The Trial Court neither verified, nor could find a
           single document to suggest that the plaintiffs were aware of
           the execution of the sale deed in the year 2004.
     (iv) It appears that the stamp papers were purchased by the
          defendants and not by the plaintiffs and this important fact
          was not even considered by the Trial Court while deciding the
          application under Order-VII Rule-11 of C.P.C.
     (v)   Though the law requires the Talati to make an entry of the
           sale deed in the revenue records as per the Resolution of the
           Department of Revenue, Government of Gujarat in hkp-1087-
           11-j, dated 15.10.1989, this is not complied.
     (vi) As per the said Resolution, a duty is cast on the revenue
          authority to make an entry in the relevant register with respect
          to sale deeds. There is no material to show that such an entry
          has been made. The Court can therefore presume that no such
          notice was issued to the plaintiffs.
     (vii) The contention of the defendant that they made an application
           under the RTI Act on 30.05.2014 itself but no response was
           received is to be rejected on the ground that the appellants
           were not party to the RTI proceedings.
     (viii) The various contentions raised by the defendant cannot be
            taken into account at this stage as the relevant material for
            disposing of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 would be
            the facts as mentioned in the plaint and no more.
6.   Challenging the decision of the First Appellate Court, the defendants
     filed a second appeal before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad.
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                         2129

     Daliben Valjibhai & Ors. v. Prajapati Kodarbhai Kachrabhai & Anr.


       By the order impugned before us, the High Court allowed the second
       appeal.
7.     From the tone and tenor of the judgment of the High Court, it
       appears that the High Court was proceeding to decide the case
       on merits, rather than an application under Order 7 Rule 11. The
       High Court referred to and extracted relevant portions of large
       number of precedents on the subject of Order 7 Rule 11, of the
       same High Court as well as the decisions of this Court. Having
       recorded the principle that operation and impact of Order 7 Rule
       11, being a drastic remedy, Courts must adhere to the discipline
       of confining their scrutiny to the plaint averments, the High Court
       however proceeded to consider other aspects of the matter. The
       fact that the High Court relied on and has in fact drawn inferences
       that were possible only after a trial is evident from the following
       findings:

       (i)    By virtue of the definition of the expression “a person is said
              to have notice” under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property
              Act, 1882, coupled with the explanation I, the plaintiff has the
              burden to prove and establish that he had no knowledge of
              the sale deed.

       (ii)   In the normal course, nobody will wait for 13 years to institute
              a suit for cancellation of the sale deed. It is normal to expect
              any plaintiff to have made some enquiry about the execution
              of the sale deed.

       (iii) The First Appellate Court has wrongly shifted the burden on to
             the defendant, when it is for the plaintiffs to show that they were
             not aware of the execution of the sale deed in the year 2004.

       (iv) The “plaintiff willfully abstained from inquiry which he ought to
            have made” when the Deputy Collector in RTS issued notice
            to him.

       (v)    Mere usage of the expression ‘fraud’ in the pleading is not
              sufficient. The plaintiff must have given details with material
              particulars of the fraud alleged. When a plaintiff bases his case
              on fraud committed by the defendant, there is an obligation to
2130                                                      [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


          plead the details of the said fraud. The essential particulars of
          such fraud are missing in the plaint.
     (vi) Further, the particulars of the alleged fraud must be prima facie
          enough to rebut the presumption of the validity of a sale deed
          under Sections 34 and 35 of the Registration Act. No such
          details are available in the plaint.
     (vii) Once a document is registered under the Registration Act, the
           date of registration becomes the date of deemed knowledge.
     (viii) Though Article 59 of the Limitation Act enables institution of a
            suit to cancel or set aside an instrument within a period of 3
            years, from the date of knowledge, the bar of limitation cannot
            be saved by simply pleading fraud.
8.   For the reasons stated above, the High Court proceeded to allow
     the second appeal and set aside the judgment of the First Appellate
     Court and restored the order of the Trial Court, rejecting the plaint
     and dismissing the suit. This is how the appellants are before us.
9.   Having considered the judgment of the High Court in detail, we
     are of the opinion that the findings of the High Court are primarily
     factual. The High Court seems to have got carried away by the
     fact that the suit was filed 13 years after the execution of the sale
     deed. The question is whether the plaintiffs had the knowledge of
     the execution of the sale deed. The High Court expected that the
     plaintiffs must have given meticulous details of the fraud perpetuated
     in the plaint itself.
10. The First Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the defendants
    made an application for correcting the revenue records only in the
    year 2017 and on the said application the Deputy Collector issued
    notice to the plaintiffs in March 2017 and that was the time when
    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.
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                             2131

    Daliben Valjibhai & Ors. v. Prajapati Kodarbhai Kachrabhai & Anr.


11. This Court had to deal with a similar situation in P.V. Guru Raj Reddy
    v. P. Neeradha Reddy1. A suit instituted by the plaintiff in the year
    2002 for cancellation of sale deed of year 1979 on the ground that
    the knowledge of fraud was acquired only in 1999, was objected to
    by the defendant in an application under Order 7 Rule 11 on the
    ground that it is barred by limitation. This Court held:
            “5. Rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC
            is a drastic power conferred in the court to terminate a
            civil action at the threshold. The conditions precedent to
            the exercise of power under Order 7 Rule 11, therefore,
            are stringent and have been consistently held to be so
            by the Court. It is the averments in the plaint that have
            to be read as a whole to find out whether it discloses a
            cause of action or whether the suit is barred under any
            law. At the stage of exercise of power under Order 7 Rule
            11, the stand of the defendants in the written statement
            or in the application for rejection of the plaint is wholly
            immaterial. It is only if the averments in the plaint ex facie
            do not disclose a cause of action or on a reading thereof
            the suit appears to be barred under any law the plaint can
            be rejected. In all other situations, the claims will have to
            be adjudicated in the course of the trial.
            6. In the present case, reading the plaint as a whole and
            proceeding on the basis that the averments made therein
            are correct, which is what the Court is required to do, it
            cannot be said that the said pleadings ex facie disclose
            that the suit is barred by limitation or is barred under any
            other provision of law. The claim of the plaintiffs with regard
            to the knowledge of the essential facts giving rise to the
            cause of action as pleaded will have to be accepted as
            correct. At the stage of consideration of the application
            under Order 7 Rule 11 the stand of the defendants in the
            written statement would be altogether irrelevant.”
                                                    (emphasis supplied)



1   (2015) 8 SCC 331.
2132                                                       [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


12. Further, in Chhotanben v. Kirtibhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar2 where
    again a suit for cancellation of sale deed was opposed through an
    application under Order 7 Rule 11, on ground of limitation, this Court
    specifically held that limitation in all such cases will arise from date
    of knowledge. The relevant portion is as follows:
            “15. What is relevant for answering the matter in issue in
            the context of the application under Order 7 Rule 11(d)
            CPC, 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 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


2   (2018) 6 SCC 422.
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                          2133

   Daliben Valjibhai & Ors. v. Prajapati Kodarbhai Kachrabhai & Anr.


          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.
          …
          19. In the present case, we find that the appellant-plaintiffs
          have asserted that the suit was filed immediately after
          getting knowledge about the fraudulent sale deed executed
          by original Defendants 1 and 2 by keeping them in the
          dark about such execution and within two days from the
          refusal by the original Defendants 1 and 2 to refrain from
          obstructing the peaceful enjoyment of use and possession
          of the ancestral property of the appellants. We affirm the
          view taken by the trial court that the issue regarding the
          suit being barred by limitation in the facts of the present
          case, is a triable issue and for which reason the plaint
          cannot be rejected at the threshold in exercise of the
          power under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC.”
                                                 (emphasis supplied)

13. In view of the above, there was no justification for the High Court in
    allowing the application under Order 7 Rule 11, on issues that were
    not evident from the plaint averments itself. The High Court was also
    not justified in holding that the limitation period commences from the
    date of registration itself. In this view of the matter the judgment of
    the High Court is unsustainable.
14. In any event of the matter, the High Court was examining the issue
    while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of CPC and as such
    reversal of the judgment of the first Appellate Court on facts was
    impermissible.
15. In view of the above, we allow the appeal and set aside the judgment
    and order dated 26.06.2024 passed by the High Court in Second
    Appeal No.53 of 2024 and we restore the judgment dated 17.10.2023
    of the First Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No.6 of 2022.
2134                                                            [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                             Supreme Court Reports


16. Since the original suit is of the year 2017, we direct that the trial
    Court should take up the suit and dispose it of as expeditiously as
    possible. We also make it clear that we have not expressed any
    opinion on the merits of the matter and our opinion is confined to
    determining the question as to whether the plaint should be rejected
    under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC.
17. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.


     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Aandrita Deb, Hony. Associate Editor
                                 (Verified by: Shibani Ghosh, Adv.)