IMPORTANT POINTS
A plaint contravening any law must be rejected.
If by clever drafting an attempt is made to bring the suit within period of limitation, court is duty bound to lift the veil.

Headnote:Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order VII Rule 11 r/w Order XIV, Rule 2 and Article 59, Schedule, Limitation Act, 1963 – Rejection of plaint – Existence of gift deed dated 06.03.1981 registered in favour of appellant herein by original plaintiff, father of the appellant herein-original defendant and his late brother never denied by plaintiff herein – Appellant herein-original defendant filing suit in the year 2001 for partition against his brothers impleading plaintiff as defendant 10 – Copies of the suit duly served on plaintiff herein – Plaintiff filing present suit in 2003 for a declaration that the deed of gift dated 06.03.1981 of which he came to know only in 2001 was showy and sham transaction and the same is not binding on him – By clever drafting plaintiff herein has tried to bring the suit within period of limitation – Held, the suit of 2003 being barred by limitation, courts below ought to allow petition under Order VII Rule 11. (Para 7, 8)
       (1977) 4 SCC 467; (1986) 4 SCC 364; (2017) 13 SCC 174; (2012) 8 SCC 706; (1989) 2 SCC 163; (2004) 3 SCC 137 – Relied upon
       (1994) 6 SCC 322; (2009) 12 SCC 454; AIR 2005 SC 2897; (2007) 10 SCC 59 – Referred
       Facts of the case:
       The original plaintiff and his brother Sheo Prasanna Singh jointly purchased the suit land in question in the year 1965. The original plaintiff, who is the father of the appellant herein-original defendant, and his late brother Sheo Prasanna Singh executed a registered deed of gift in favour of the appellant herein on 06.03.1981 gifting the suit land and put him in possession thereof. The appellant herein-original defendant instituted one T.S. (Partition) Suit against his brothers and others for partition of the joint Hindu family properties. The respondent herein-original plaintiff in the present suit was also joined as defendant No. 10 in the same suit. Sheo Prasanna Singh died on 15.12.2002. Thereafter, the respondent herein-original plaintiff alone filed T.S. No. 19 of 2003 against the appellant herein-original defendant in the Court of Munsif, Danapur for a declaration that the deed of gift dated 06.03.1981 executed in favour of the appellant herein is showy and sham transaction and no title and possession with respect to the gifted property ever passed to the appellant-original defendant and hence the same is not binding on him. A prayer was also made for confirming his possession over the suit property and in case he is found out of possession, then a decree for recovery of possession be passed.
       The appellant herein-original defendant after filing his written statement, filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 r/w Order XIV, Rule 2 CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is clearly barred by law of limitation, as the deed of gift having been executed on 06.03.1981, the suit under Article 59 of the Limitation Act ought to have been filed within three years of the deed of execution of the gift deed, whereas the same has been filed after more than 22 years of the execution of the deed. The maintainability of the suit was also challenged in view of Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act as well as Section 47 of the Registration Act.
       The said application was dismissed on the ground that, for determining the question of Limitation, oral evidence are required to be taken into account.
       The appellant herein-original defendant filed a revision application before the High Court which has been dismissed.
       Finding of the Court:
       Application under Order VII Rule 11 ought to be allowed.
       Result: Appeal allowed.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

A plaint that contravenes any law must be rejected by the court (!) (!) .
If a party attempts to cleverly draft a suit to bring it within a limitation period, the court has a duty to scrutinize and "lift the veil" to prevent misuse of legal procedures (!) (!) .
The scope of an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) is limited to examining whether the plaint discloses a cause of action, whether it is barred by law, or if it is manifestly vexatious or meritless (!) (!) (!) .
The power to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 should be exercised strictly and only when the plaint, on its face, discloses that the suit is barred by law or does not disclose a cause of action (!) (!) .
A cause of action comprises facts that, if proven, would entitle the plaintiff to relief; it does not include evidence or defenses (!) (!) .
The court must consider the entire plaint as a whole to determine if it discloses a legitimate cause of action or if it is an abuse of process designed to circumvent legal limitations (!) (!) .
If the facts in the plaint suggest that the suit is clearly barred by law, particularly by limitation, the court is justified in rejecting it at the outset (!) (!) .
The question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, but if the plaint itself indicates that the suit is barred by law, the court can exercise its power to reject the plaint without awaiting full evidence (!) (!) .
In the case at hand, the court found that the suit was filed after a significant period following the execution of a registered gift deed, and the plaintiff did not challenge this deed for over 22 years, indicating that the suit was barred by limitation (!) (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that clever drafting cannot be used to circumvent clear legal bar such as limitation, and suits based on such tactics should be dismissed at the threshold (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice related to this document.

JUDGMENT

M. R. Shah, J.

Application for substitution is allowed in terms of the prayer made.

1.1 Leave granted.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 12.03.2013 passed in Civil Revision No. 1829 of 2006 by the High Court of Judicature at Patna by which the High Court has dismissed the said revision petition and has confirmed the order passed by the learned Munsif, Danapur dated 28.08.2006 passed in Title Suit No. 19 of 2003 by which the learned trial Court rejected the application submitted by the original defendant to reject the plaint in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC'), the original defendant has preferred the present appeal.

3. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:

That the original plaintiff and his brother Sheo Prasanna Singh jointly purchased the suit land in question in the year 1965. That the original plaintiff, who is the father of the appellant herein-original defendant, and his late brother Sheo Prasanna Singh executed a registered deed of gift in favour of the appellant herein on 06.03.1981 gifting the suit land and put him in possession thereof. That the appellant herein-original defendant instituted one T.S. (Partition) Suit No. 203 of 2001 against his brothers and others for partition of the joint Hindu family properties. That the respondent herein-original plaintiff in the present suit was also joined as defendant No. 10 in the same suit. It appears that the summon along with a copy of the plaint of the aforesaid partition suit was allegedly served on the plaintiff-respondent herein on 21.12.2001. That Sheo Prasanna Singh died on 15.12.2002. That thereafter, the respondent herein-original plaintiff alone filed T.S. No. 19 of 2003 against the appellant herein-original defendant in the Court of Munsif, Danapur for a declaration that the deed of gift dated 06.03.1981 executed in favour of the appellant herein is showy and sham transaction and no title and possession with respect to the gifted property ever passed to the appellant-original defendant and hence the same is not binding on him. A prayer was also made for confirming his possession over the suit property and in case he is found out of possession, then a decree for recovery of possession be passed.

3.1 That the appellant herein-original defendant after filing his written statement, filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 r/w Order XIV, Rule 2 CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is clearly barred by law of limitation, as the deed of gift having been executed on 06.03.1981, the suit under Article 59 of the Limitation Act ought to have been filed within three years of the deed of execution of the gift deed, whereas the same has been filed after more than 22 years of the execution of the deed. It was also further averred that the suit is not maintainable in view of Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act as well as Section 47 of the Registration Act.

3.2 That the Munsif, Danapur rejected the said application vide order dated 28.08.2006 on the ground that from the perusal of records and other documents, for determining the question of Limitation, oral evidence are required to be taken into account. Therefore, the question is to be adjudicated only after the evidence are led by both the parties.

3.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Munsif, Danapur rejecting the Order 7 Rule 11 application, the appellant herein-original defendant filed a revision application before the High Court. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed the revision application and has confirmed the order passed by the Munsif, Danapur rejecting the Order 7 Rule 11 application. Hence, the present appeal at the instance of the original defendant.

4. Learned counsel on behalf of the appellant-original defendant has vehemently submitted that, in the facts and circumstances of th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(SC) 283

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAL. Nageswara Rao and M. R. Shah, JJ.Raghwendra Sharan Singh – AppellantVersusRam Prasanna Singh (Dead) By Lrs – RespondentCivil Appeal No. 2960 of 2019 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 20068 of 2013]Decided on : 13-03-2019

IMPORTANT POINTSA plaint contravening any law must be rejected. If by clever drafting an attempt is made to bring the suit within period of limitation, court is duty bound to lift the veil.

Cases Referred (10)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. Nageswara Rao and M. R. Shah, JJ.
Raghwendra Sharan Singh – Appellant
Versus
Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead) By Lrs – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2960 of 2019 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 20068 of 2013]
Decided on : 13-03-2019

IMPORTANT POINTS
A plaint contravening any law must be rejected.
If by clever drafting an attempt is made to bring the suit within period of limitation, court is duty bound to lift the veil.