Allegations of fraud in a plaint must be specific to avoid rejection under Order VII Rule 11; litigation is barred by limitation if filed long after execution of the relevant documents.

ORDER :

(R. DEVDAS, J.)

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners, who were defendants No.1 to 3 in O.S.No.1076/2023, on the file of the learned III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, being aggrieved of the rejection of their interlocutory application in I.A.No.2 filed under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

3. The plaintiff filed the suit seeking a declaration that the plaintiff is the sole and absolute owner in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property; to set aside the registered release deed dated 28.09.2007, on the ground that, late Sri.Basavaradhya, the plaintiff’s brother-in-law, taking undue advantage of the innocence of the plaintiff and his family and with mala fide intention to grab the suit schedule property from the plaintiff’s family, coerced the plaintiff and his family members to execute the release deed.

4. After entering appearance, the defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaint does not disclose cause of action and is barred by law. The Trial Court found that during the lifetime of the plaintiff’s father, he purchased the suit schedule property in the name of his wife Smt.Shivamma (mother of the plaintiff), in the year 1978. The plaintiff’s mother died on 18.06.2006, leaving behind the plaintiff and other legal heirs. It was contended by the plaintiff that his brother- in-law was dominating the affairs of the family and he managed the family affairs. It is contended that taking advantage of the clout that his brother-in-law wielded on the family members, he forced the plaintiff, his father and sister to appear before the Sub-Registrar and directed them to execute the release deed, to enable him to run the business under the name and style as “Vinayaka Industrial Agency”. The plaintiff and family members were told that his brother-in-law required funds to be raised for improvement of the business and therefore, documents have to be pledged with a Bank. It is contended that the defendants tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. However, when the plaintiff and his father demanded re-conveyance of the property in their favour, the defendants refused to do so. The Trial Court is therefore of the opinion that since the suit is one for declaration and permanent injunction, it cannot be said that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action. The Trial Court is of the opinion that having regard to the allegations of fraud and coercion being pleaded, a full fledged trial would be necessary to consider whether the contentions raised by the plaintiff could be acceptable and since the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, unless parties lead evidence, the question cannot be decided.

5. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. Udaya Holla, appearing for the defendants submitted that there cannot be any doubt that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the Court is required to look into the averments made in the plaint alone. The learned Senior Counsel would therefore draw the attention of this Court to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of C.S.Ramaswamy Vs. V.K.Senthil and Others , 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1330, where it was held that the averments and allegations in the plaint with respect to fraud are not supported by any further averments and allegations how the fraud has been committed/played. Mere stating in the plaint that a fraud has been played is not enough and the allegations of fraud must be specifically averred in the plaint, otherwise merely by using the word ‘fraud’ the plaintiff would try to get the suit within limitation, which otherwise may be barred by limitation.

6. Learned Senior Counsel contended that the plaintiff has contended in the plaint that