2018 Supreme(Cal) 304
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.
GPT Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
Soorajmull Nagarmull and Others – Respondents
C.O. No. 622 of 2018
Decided On : 19-06-2018
For the Petitioners: Mr. S.P. Roy Chowdhury, Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, Mr. Srijib Chakraborty, Ms. Urmila Chakraborty, Mr. Souvik Das.
For the Respondents: Mr. Haradhan Banerjee, Mr. Subhrangshu Dutta, Mr. Nilmoni Das.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit can be barred under the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act if the plaintiff admits possession of the defendant but omits to seek recovery of possession. Additionally, the starting point of limitation for challenging deeds is the date of registration, and clever drafting to challenge specific deeds within the limitation period can render a suit time-barred.
Headnote:
Limitation - Declaration of Title - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a revisional application seeking rejection of plaint in a suit for declaration and consequential relief in respect of an immovable property. The primary grounds for rejection were that the suit was time-barred and barred under the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff admitted possession of the defendant, yet omitted to seek the relief of recovery of possession, thereby invoking the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. The court also held that the suit was time-barred based on the starting point of limitation and the clever drafting of the plaint.
Issues: The issues revolved around the admission of possession by the plaintiff, the omission to seek recovery of possession, and the clever drafting of the plaint to challenge specific deeds within the limitation period.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suit was barred under the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act as the plaintiff admitted possession of the defendant but omitted to seek recovery of possession. Additionally, the suit was found to be time-barred based on the starting point of limitation and the clever drafting of the plaint.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revisional application, rejected the plaint, and set aside the previous order refusing the rejection of the plaint.
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.
1. The petitioner and opposite party No. 1 are represented by respective learned counsel. In view of the proforma opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 not being affected by the decision of this revisional application, service on the said proforma opposite parties was deemed redundant.
2. The first defendant in a suit for declaration and consequential relief in respect of an immovable property has filed the present revisional application. By virtue of the impugned order, the petitioner’s application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected on contest. Although various grounds for rejection of plaint were taken by the petitioner in the court below, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner primarily restricts his submissions to two grounds:
(i) The suit was time barred.
(ii) The suit was barred under the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Both on the face of the plaint.
3. The suit in question was filed for the following reliefs:
(a) A decree for declaration that the plaintiff has got right, title and interest and ownership in respect of the property described in Schedule A hereunder with a declaration that the defendant no. 1 has got no right, title and interest in respect of the property described in Schedule ‘A’ & ‘B’ hereunder on the footing of a registered deed of transfer dated 30.1.2016 and its mother deeds.
(b) A decree for declaration that the mother deeds of the defendant no. 1 is not binding upon the plaintiff with further declaration that the defendant no. 1 has got no right, title and interest in the property and has got no right to make any construction on the ‘B’ Schedule property belonged to the plaintiff on the strength of any plan, if any, sanctioned in favour of the defendant no. 1 with declaration that plaintiff’s title to the “A” & “B” Schedule property has not been affected by the purchase deed dated 20.01.2016 of defendant No. 1 and mother deeds.
(c) A decree for a declaration that the defendant no. 1 has no right to demolish the existing building and structure raised on the property and no right to make any multistoried building on the said property described in Schedule ‘B’ below.
(d) Recovery of damages of Rs. 1,51,000/- be passed against the defendant no. 1.
(e) A decree be passed declaring that the decree passed in TS No. 20 of 1998 by the court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Howrah which was registered in the registration office in between the parties thereto are not binding upon the plaintiff with declaration that the title of the plaintiff to the property described in Schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ has not been affected in any way by the series of transfer by deeds as referred to above including the aforesaid decree thereof and plaintiff’s title to the property described in Schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ thereof still remains valid with declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to take steps for eviction against the tenant separately in accordance with law.
(f) A decree of permanent injunction be passed restraining the defendant no. 1 including its agents and employees from making any construction and/or from changing the nature and character of the property described in Schedule ‘B’ hereunder and not to transfer, encumber and/or alienate the property to any third party.
(g) A decree for a permanent injunction be passed against the defendant nos. 2 and 3 from mutating the name of the defendant no. 1 in the municipal record and/or not to give any effect and/or further effect to the mutation, if any, made and not to sanction any plan for raising multistoried building on the property described in Schedule A & B hereunder and/or not to give any effect and/or further effect to the plan, if any, sanctioned by the Municipal Authority in respect of B Schedule property also on the footing of the purported transferred deeds