SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Cal) 985

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
BIBHAS RANJAN DE, J.
Fabworth Promoters Private Limited - Petitioner
Versus 
The Kolkata Municipal Corporation And Ors.- Respondents
C.O. 1487 of 2018 
Decided On : 25-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Jishnu Saha, Sr. Adv., Mr. Meghajit Mukherjee, Adv., Ms. Brinda Sengupta, Adv., Mr. Ishaan Saha, Adv., Mr. Tanish Ganeriwala, Adv., Ms. Srijeeta Gupta, Adv., Ms. Sonia Das, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Malay Kr. Ghosh, Sr, Adv., Mr. Swapan Kr. Debnath, Adv., Mr. Satyajit Talukder, Adv., Mr. Arindam Chatterjee, Adv.

The court affirmed that a suit regarding title to property is barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, if not filed within three years of the cause of action arising.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 58 and 65 - Revision application challenging the dismissal of plaint regarding a title dispute over land and alleged non-disclosure of cause of action - Court finds that cause of action arose when lease deed was executed; thus, claims for title are barred by limitation as suit was filed after the period prescribed under Article 58 - Rejecting plaint as per Order VII Rule 11 - Revision application allowed. (Paras 12-31)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to set aside a lower court’s order dismissing a title suit concerning land claimed by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC). The suit alleged that a lease to a third party was void ab initio. The opposition argued the suit was barred by limitation and lacked a cause of action.

Findings of Court:
The Court found that the plaint disclosed a cause of action but was ultimately barred by the limitation period laid out in Article 58 of the Limitation Act since the claim was not initiated within 3 years of the lease execution.

Issues: The primary issues were whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action and if the suit was barred by limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that despite the disclosure of a cause of action, the plaintiff's claims for title and possession were barred by limitation, concluding the suit could not proceed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC due to being beyond the limitation period. The reclamation of land ownership must be pursued within 3 years of accrual of the right to sue.

Result: The revision application is allowed and the plaint is rejected.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks to set aside previous court order. (Para 1 , 2)
2. background on property ownership and historical context. (Para 3 , 25)
3. arguments regarding limitation and cause of action. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 9)
4. court examines presence of cause of action. (Para 12 , 13)
5. analysis of ownership and limitation arguments. (Para 22 , 23 , 24)
6. conclusion on the rejection of the plaint. (Para 30 , 31)

JUDGMENT :

Bibhas Ranjan De, J.

Preface:-

1. The instant revision application has been preferred before this Court by the aggrieved petitioner, with a fervent prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 08.11.2017 whereby the Ld. 4th Civil Judge, (Senior Division) at Alipore in the Title suit no. 2611 of 2016, had erroneously and with respect, incorrectly declined to accede to the just and legitimate prayer made in the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as CPC)

Background facts:-

2. The plaintiff/opposite party no. 1 had filed a suit for declaration of title and consequential reliefs including a prayer for declaration that the lease deed dated 28.09.2007 is void ab initio and further sought for recovery of possession and permanent injunction against the defendant no. 1/petitioner herein qua the suit property mentioned in the schedule to the plaint.

3. The defendant no. 1/petitioner preferred an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC contending inter alia that the plaint fails to disclose the cause of action delineating the fact of acquiring title over the suit property by the plaintiff/opposite party no. 1 and also that the suit is barred by limitation:-

1. On 1870 the Secretary of state of India conveyed the land commonly known as Dhapa Dumping Ground which is now popularly known as "Dhapa Square Mile" to the Justice of peace for conservancy of the city of Calcutta at the material point of time and thereafter the said land including the suit land were vested to the then Calcutta Corporation by operation of law i.e. Act IV of 1876.

2. Thereafter on or about 1880 the Corporation lease out the land to Bhabanath Sen for doing work of unloading of refuge wagons.

3. That on the Eastern Metropolitan By Pass, there eixts low lying area popularly known as DHAPA MATH consisting of Mouzas as Dhapa Boinchtala, Purba Topsia, Dhapa Manpur, Nimok Poltan, Paschim Chowbhaga Dhaleda, Tangra and adjoining area a small part of which is mainly meant for dumping and spreading Garbage of the city of Calcutta. The said area is the longest vacant land in the city and subject matter of the present suit and the land originally belongs to the Corporation of Calcutta at present known as Kolkata Municipal Corporation.

4. The Calcutta Municipal Corporation (previously known as Corporation of Calcutta) being the principal authority in civic affairs in respect of the city of Calcutta is required to perform various functions. One of such functions is the maintenance of proper conversancy system in Calcutta City which includes effective discharge of sewerage and dumping of garbage.

5. For better and effective discharge of sewerage and dumping of garbage, a plot of land outside limits of the City of Calcutta was necessary. Under Act No.VI of 1857 the Land Acquisition Act then in force, the Secretary of State of India in Council acquired 2005 Bighas 8 Cottahs 4 Chittaks of land near area now known as Salt Lake and by an Indenture of Conveyance dated 5th December, 1870 made over the said plot of land to the Justice of peace for the Town of Calcutta. The said plot of land subsequently vested in the Corporation of Calcutta by the Operation of Act No.IV of 1875 which superseded the Act V of VI of 1863.

6. Another small parcel of adjacent land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act.

7. Bhabanath Sen was engaged by the Corporation of Calcutta to perform the work of unloading refuses of city of Calcutta within a portion of the said plot of land which was becoming the dumping ground.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top