Back
2025 Supreme(Guj) 1709
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SANJEEV J.THAKER, J.
Patel Kanubhai Bhenkabhai – Appellant
Versus
Patel Shardaben Ranchhodbhai & Ors. – Respondents
R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 189 of 2025 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2024
Decided on : 13-06-2025
For the Appellant : MR. BK. RAJ
For the Respondent: MR HENIL M SHAH
Limitation period for filing suit for specific performance begins from the date the cause of action arises; delay beyond three years bars the suit.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Appeal against dismissal of suit - Second Appeal filed challenging lower court's dismissal of suit for specific performance due to elapsed limitation period (Paras 1, 16).
(B) Limitation - The courts held that the cause of action arose in 1983, and the plaintiff's suit filed in 2021 was barred by the limitation period (Paras 10, 16).
(C) Points of law - The trial court's rejection of the suit was justified under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, as no sufficient cause of action was demonstrated (Paras 4.2, 4.4).
(D) Jurisdiction - The second appeal is limited to questioning concurrent findings of fact without re-appreciating evidence (Paras 17, 18). (E) Specific performance - It was determined that plaintiffs waited too long to enforce their claim, further complicating their standing (Paras 10, 16).
Findings of Court:
The High Court found no substantial questions of law presented in the appeal and upheld the dismissal of the suit.
Result: Second appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
SANJEEV J.THAKER, J.
1. The present Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “the CPC”) challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Valsad in Regular Civil Appeal No.11 of 2021, confirming the judgment and decree dated 01.11.2021 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge Valsad in Regular Civil Suit No.9 of 2021.
2. For the sake of brevity and convenience, the parties are referred to at their original status as that in the suit.
3. The brief facts arising in the present Second Appeal are that the plaintiff had filed Regular Civil Suit on the ground that the plaintiff and father of defendant and his family members had good relation and both parties agreed to exchange between themselves the property mentioned at paragraph nos.1 and 2 of the plaint. It is a case of the plaintiff that the said exchange of land between the plaintiff and the defendant were as per their mutual understanding and free will and the plaintiff and the defendant applied before the Mamlatdar by a letter dated 15.03.1983 for changing the ownership of the suit property in the record and the Mamlatdar had passed an order, thereby refusing to effect the exchange between the parties by letter dated 23.09.1983.
4. It is the case of the plaintiff that thereafter the defendant on one or the other pretext started delaying the execution of transferring the land and on 27.01.2021, the plaintiff came to know that the suit property is going to be sold by the defendant and therefore, the plaintiff filed Civil Suit No.9 of 2021 before the 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge Valsad. The defendant appeared in the said suit and filed application under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC and after considering the plaint and the documents annexed with the plaint, the Trial Court rejected the said suit being barred by law. Aggrieved by the said order the plaintiff filed Regular Civil Appeal No.11 of 2021 and after reappreciating findings of the Trial Court, the First Appellate Court dismissed the said appeal hence the present Second Appeal is filed and the substantial questions of law suggested in the memo of appeal are as under:
“(4.1) Whether the judgment of the Appellate Court is tenable in the eyes of law in absence of framing of the points as per Order 41 Rule 31 of C.P.C.?
(4.2) Whether the impugned order dated 01.11.2021 passed by the Trial court to reject the suit under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 is justified and tenable in the eyes of the law, especially when no application is moved by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 as well as no specific contention is taken in the written statement that the suit is barred by the law of limitation?
(4.3) Whether the Appellate Court and Trial Court are justified to hold that the cause of action occurred in the year of 1983 and not in the year of 2021?
(4.4) Whether the judgment of the Appellate Court and order of the Trial Court are not contrary to the principle of the law laid down by the catena of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the limitation is a question of law and fact both and hence it requires adjudication in the trial?
(4.5) Whether the judgment of the Appellate Court and order of the Trial Court are not contrary to the principle of the law laid down by the catena of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the rejection or grant of the revenue entry does not decide the property rights and they are only for the fiscal purpose?
(4.6) Whether the judgment of the Appellate Court and order of the Trial Court are legally tenable when they hold that the transfer of agriculture land which took place in the year 1979 to 1980 is contrary to the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act?
(4.7) Whether the judgment of the Appellate Court and order of the Trial Court are tenable in the eyes of law when there is no cancellation agreement between the parties who exchanged the agricultural land in the year 197
