Case: CHOTANBEN Vs. KIRITBHAI JALKRUSHNABHAI THAKKAR

dated 18 th October, 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 appellants (plaintiffs) is that until 2013 they had no knowledge whatsoever regarding execution of such sale deed by their brothers - original defendant Nos.1 & 2, in favour of Jaikrishnabhai Prabhudas Thakkar or defendant Nos.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 defendant Nos.1 & 2) calling upon them to stop interfering with their possession and to partition the property and provide exclusive possession of half (1/2) portion of the land so designated towards their share. However, when they realized that the original defendant Nos.1 & 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 No.1 (defendant No.5) for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d). That view commends to us.13. The High Court on the other hand, has considered the matter on the basis of conjectures and surmises and not even bothered to analyse the averments in the plaint, although it has passed a speaking order running into 19 paragraphs. It has attempted to answer the issue in one paragraph which has been reproduced hitherto (in paragraph 7). The approach of the Trial Court, on the other hand, was consistent with the settled legal position expounded in Saleem Bhai and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others 1 , Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. and Others Vs. Owners & Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune Express and Others 2 and also T. Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal and Another 3 .14. These decisions have been noted in the case of Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society Vs. Ponniamman Educational Trust, 4 where this Court, in paragraph 11, observed thus:?11. This position was explained by this Court in Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra, in which, while considering Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code, it was held as under: (SCC p. 560, para 9)?9. A perusal of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC makes it clear that the relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an application thereunder are the averments in the plaint. The trial court can exercise the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC at any stage of the suit—before registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at any time before the conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 CPC, the averments in the plaint are germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage, therefore, a direction to file the written statement without deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC cannot but be procedural irregularity touching the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court.?It is clear that in order to consider Order 7 Rule 11, the court has to look into the averments in the plaint and the same can be exercised by the trial court at any stage of the suit. It is also clear that the averments in the written statement are immaterial and it is the duty of the Court to scrutinise the averments/pleas in the plaint. In other words, what needs to be looked into in deciding such an application are the averments in the plaint. At that stage, the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement are wholly irrelevant and the matter is to be decided only on the plaint averments. These principles have been reiterated in Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. v. Ganesh Property and Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. v. Vessel M.V. Fortune Express.?15. The High Court has adverted to the case of Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society (supra), which had occasion to consider the correctness of the view taken by the High Court in ordering rejection of the plaint in part, against one defendant, on the ground that it did not disclose any cause of action qua that defendant. The High Court has also noted the decision relied upon by the contesting respondents in the case of Mayur (H.K.) Ltd. and Ors. (supra), which has restated the settled legal position about the scope of power of the Court to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC.16. In the present case, we find that the appellants (plaintiffs) have asserted that the suit was filed immediately after getting knowledge about the fraudulent sale deed executed by original defendant Nos.1 & 2 by keeping them in the dark about such execution and within two days from the refusal by the original defendant Nos.1 & 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 VII Rule 11(d).17. In the above conspectus, we have no hesitation in reversing the view taken by the High Court and restoring the order of the Trial Court rejecting the application (Exh.21) filed by respondent No.1 (defendant No.5) under Order VII Rule 11(d).

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]11. After having cogitated over the averments in the plaint and the reasons recorded by the Trial Court as well as the High Court, we have no manner of doubt that the High Court committed manifest error in reversing the view taken by the Trial Court that the factum of suit being barred by limitation, was a triable issue in the fact situation of the present case. We say so because the appellants (plaintiffs) have asserted that until 2013 they had no knowledge whatsoever about the execution of the registered sale deed concerning their ancestral property. Further, they have denied the thumb impressions on the registered sale deed as belonging to them and have alleged forgery and impersonation. In the context of totality of averments in the plaint and the reliefs claimed, which of the Articles from amongst Articles 56, 58, 59, 65 or 110 or any other Article of the Limitation Act will apply to the facts of the present case, may have to be considered at the appropriateto 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 No.1 (defendant No.5) for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d). That view commends to us.13. The High Court on the other hand, has considered the matter on the basis of conjectures and surmises and not even bothered to analyse the averments in the plaint, although it has passed a speaking order running into 19 paragraphs. It has attempted to answer the issue in one paragraph which has been reproduced hitherto (in paragraph 7). The approach of the Trial Court, on the other hand, was consistent with the settled legal position expounded in Saleem Bhai and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others 1 , Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. and Others Vs. Owners & Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune Express and Others 2 and also T. Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal and Another 3 ..16. In the present case, we find that the appellants (plaintiffs) have asserted that the suit was filed immediately after getting knowledge about the fraudulent sale deed executed by original defendant Nos.1 & 2 by keeping them in the dark about such execution and within two days from the refusal by the original defendant Nos.1 & 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 VII Rule 11(d).17. In the above conspectus, we have no hesitation in reversing the view taken by the High Court and restoring the order of the Trial Court rejecting the application (Exh.21) filed by respondent No.1 (defendant No.5) under Order VII Rule 11(d).