Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Suraj Govindaraj, J.
Metropoli Overseas Limited – Appellant
Versus
H.S. Deekshit – Respondent
CRP 307 of 2020
Decided On : 14-09-2021
In a suit for partition and declaration that certain sale deeds are not binding, the main relief is a declaration, not partition. The limitation period for such a suit is under Article 109 of the Limitation Act, and it starts running from the date of possession of the property by the alienee.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and declaration that certain sale deeds are not binding on them. The trial court rejected the defendant's application to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), holding that there were disputed questions of fact and law that required a trial. The defendant appealed to the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the trial court erred in not rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC. The court found that the suit was ex facie barred by limitation, as the sale deeds were registered more than 12 years before the suit was filed. The court also found that the plaintiffs were aware of the sale deeds and their exclusion from the joint family property more than three years before the suit was filed. The court further held that the plaintiffs' suit was an abuse of process, as they had colluded with the defendants to file the suit in order to create obstacles for the defendant who had purchased the property.
Issues: 1. Whether a plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC on the ground of the suit being ex-facie barred by limitation or in all cases limitation would be a mixed question of law and fact requiring trial? 2. Whether registration of a sale deed in respect of alleged joint family property would amount to constructive notice to all members of the joint family? 3. Whether in a suit for partition and declaration that certain sale deeds are not binding would the main relief be a declaration or partition? 4. Would the limitation period for such a suit be under Article 109 or 110 of the Limitation Act and when would the period for limitation start running? 5. Whether the order passed by the trial court requires any interference? 6. What Order ?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC on the ground of the suit being ex-facie barred by limitation if the reading of the plaint on its face discloses that there is no cause of action or that it is barred by any law. 2. Registration of a sale deed in respect of alleged joint family property would amount to constructive notice to all members of the joint family, if the following conditions are fulfilled: a. The instrument is compulsorily registrable. b. The registration of the document is completed in the manner prescribed by the Indian Registration Act. c. The instrument (or its memorandum) and the particulars regarding the transaction to which it related must be correctly entered in the registers or books maintained under the Registration Act. 3. In a suit for partition and declaration that certain sale deeds are not binding, the main relief is a declaration, not partition. The limitation period for such a suit is under Article 109 of the Limitation Act, and it starts running from the date of possession of the property by the alienee.
Final Decision: The High Court set aside the trial court's order and allowed the defendant's application to reject the plaint. The court also directed the plaintiffs to pay costs of Rs.5,000 each to the defendant.
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner Defendant No.3 is before this Court seeking for setting aside the order dtd. 23/10/2020 passed in O.S. No.237/2020 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge at Nelamangala dismissing the application in I.A. No.III filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) read with Sec. 151 of the Civil Procedure Code filed by the defendant No.3 therein, who is the petitioner herein.
2. The plaint in O.S. No.237/2020 has been filed seeking for the following reliefs:
B]. To pass the judgment and decree of declaration to declare that the below mentioned documents are not binding upon the shares of the plaintiffs out of the suit schedule property.
1) The agreement to sell dtd. 3/2/1995 registered in the office of the sub-registrar at Nelamangala as document no 2282/1994 in favour of the defendant no 3 alleged to be executed by the defendant no 1 and 2.
2) The GPA dtd. 15/2/1995 registered in the office of the sub-registrar at Nelamangala as document no 102/1995 alleged to have been executed by the defendants no 1 and 2 in respect of the suit property in favour of the defendant no 3.
3) The sale deed dtd. 20/7/1995 as document no 803/1995-96,
4) The sale deed dtd. 20/7/1995 as document no 807/1995-96,
5) The sale deed dtd. 19/7/1995 as document no 846/1995-96,
6) The sale deed dtd. 19/7/1995 as document no 850/1995-96,
7) The sale deed dtd. 19/7/1995 as document no 924/1995-96. The above referred 5 sale deeds were registered in the office of the sub registrar at Nelamangala executed by Pawan kumar Dalmia in favour of the defendant No.3 in respect of the suit schedule property.
C]. To pass the judgment and decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant no 3 its agents, servants, henchmen or anybody claiming through it or under it from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property permanently.
D] For cost of the suit and to pass any other relief/reliefs which this Hon'ble Court deems it fit to grant under the circumstances of the case"
3. In the application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), it was contended that:
3.2. Even a perusal of the cause title to the suit in O.S. No.227/2020 indicates that the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2 were residing under the same roof. Therefore, the plaintiffs were aware of the transaction executed by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 and as such, apart from the suit being an abuse of the process of the Court, the suit is barred by limitation since the plaintiffs were aware of the execution of the sale deeds;
3.3. Apart therefrom, there are various other allegations made as regards subsequent to the execution of sale deeds, confirmation deeds have been executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 and their father and as regards the sale deed executed in favour of defendant No.3, the permission/sanction was obtained by defendant No.3 etc.
4. The said application came to be opposed by the plaintiff by filing objections contending that
4.2. The plaintiffs being sons of defendant No.1 are entitled for the shares as claimed in the suit.
4.3. There is no consideration which is passed under the sale deed. Neither the agreement of sale nor the sale deeds confer any right on the defendant No.3.
4.4. Article 60 of the Limitation Act is not applicable since the same relates to
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a meaningful reading of the plaint, scrutiny of the cause of action, and prevention of illusory causes of action to avoid circumventin....
(1) Rejection of plaint – When a document referred to in plaint, forms basis of plaint, it should be treated as a part of plaint – Court cannot look into written statement or documents filed by defen....
A suit filed to declare a sale deed null and void is barred by limitation if not filed within three years from the date of registration, and must disclose a valid cause of action.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit for declaration must be filed within the period of limitation as per Article 58 of the Limitation Act, and failure to do so will result....
The court emphasized that questions of limitation and cause of action are mixed issues of law and fact best resolved at trial, not at the application stage.
The limitation period for challenging registered sale deeds starts upon acquiring knowledge of the transaction, not merely from the registration date, reaffirming the necessity of trial for evidentia....
The limitation period for challenging a deed starts from the date of knowledge, not from its execution, allowing the suit for partition to proceed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
