1. Suit for cancellation of registered sale deed — allegation of fraud and forgery — dispute regarding the commencement of the limitation period. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 1334
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
Daliben Valjibhai and Others – Appellants
Versus
Prajapati Kodarbhai Kachrabhai and Another – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 14293 of 2024 [Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 23625 of 2024]
Decided On : 11-12-2024
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Nikhil Goel, Pradhuman Gohil, Taruna Singh Gohil, Alapati Sahithya Krishna, Hetvi K. Patel, Rushabh N. Kapadia, Siddharth Singh, Siddhi Gupta
For the Respondents: Purvish Jitendra Malkan, Jigar Gadhvi, Dharita Malkan, Alok Kumar, Rajesh Udit Singh, Khushboo Aakash Sheth
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Nikhil Goel, Pradhuman Gohil, Taruna Singh Gohil, Alapati Sahithya Krishna, Hetvi K. Patel, Rushabh N. Kapadia, Siddharth Singh, Siddhi Gupta
For the Respondents: Purvish Jitendra Malkan, Jigar Gadhvi, Dharita Malkan, Alok Kumar, Rajesh Udit Singh, Khushboo Aakash Sheth
Limitation for filing a suit based on fraud begins from the date of knowledge, not the date of registration of the deed.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 7 Rule 11 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Suit for cancellation of sale deed - Plaintiffs alleged fraud in execution of sale deed dated 04.12.2004, filed suit on 10.04.2017 - Trial Court dismissed suit as barred by limitation - First Appellate Court allowed appeal, stating limitation is a mixed question of law and fact - High Court reversed decision, ruling limitation starts from registration date - Supreme Court restored First Appellate Court's judgment, emphasizing that limitation issues must be determined based on evidence. (Paras 3, 5, 7, 9, 15)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the suit is barred by limitation based on the date of registration or the date of knowledge of the alleged fraud. (Para 3 , 7 )
3. Rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 requires examining only plaint averments; limitation in fraud cases is a mixed question of law and fact. (Para 5 , 9 , 11 , 12 )
4. For Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the court must accept plaint averments as correct; limitation for cancelling a deed runs from the date of knowledge. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court order set aside — First Appellate Court judgment restored — Trial Court directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously. (Para 15 , 16 )
6. What is the scope of scrutiny for a court when deciding an application for rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC?
The court must confine its scrutiny to the averments in the plaint, reading them as a whole. The stand of the defendants in the written statement or the application is immaterial; the plaint's claims must be accepted as correct at this stage. (Para 11 , 12 )
7. When does the limitation period begin for a suit to cancel a registered instrument based on fraud?
Under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, the limitation period for cancelling or setting aside an instrument begins from the date the plaintiff acquires knowledge of the fraud, not necessarily from the date of registration. (Para 10 , 12 , 13 )
8. Can a plaint be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 if the date of knowledge of fraud is disputed?
No, because limitation is often a mixed question of law and fact. If the plaint asserts knowledge at a specific time, it becomes a triable issue that cannot be decided at the threshold without evidence. (Para 5 , 11 , 12 )
9. Can a High Court reverse findings of fact while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of the CPC in a second appeal?
No, the reversal of a judgment of the first appellate court on purely factual grounds is impermissible when exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of the CPC. (Para 14 )
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 vs. 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 same time on the stamp paper which is produced, the same is also
