Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
HIRDESH, J.
ANIL, s/o SHANTI PRIYA DOSHI – Petitioner
Versus
PAPPU, s/o. PARMANAND PATEL and Others – Respondents
Civil Rev. No. 821 of 2023
Decided On : 04-03-2024
Limitation - Civil Suit - Order 7 Rule 11, Limitation Act - The court emphasized the necessity of timely filing of suits, interpreting the limitation provisions to conclude that the suit was barred due to delay in challenging the sale deeds.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the trial court's rejection of their application to dismiss a suit filed by the respondent, which sought to set aside sale deeds based on a power of attorney that had been cancelled. The petitioner argued the suit was barred by limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent was aware of the sale deeds as early as 2006 but did not file the suit until 2016, thus the suit was barred by limitation. The trial court's decision to require evidence was deemed erroneous.
Issues: Whether the suit filed by the respondent was barred by limitation under the Limitation Act and whether the trial court erred in not dismissing the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the right to sue accrues when the cause of action arises, and since the respondent was aware of the sale deeds long before filing the suit, the suit was time-barred.
Result: The revision is allowed, the trial court's order is set aside, and the plaint is rejected as time-barred.
ORDER :
(Hirdesh, J.) :
This Civil Revision has been filed by the petitioner/defendant being aggrieved by the order dated 15-9-2023 passed by 5th Civil Judge, Senior Division, Indore in R.C.S. No. 54-A/2016 whereby the application under Order 7, Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code filed by the petitioner has been rejected.
2. The brief facts of the case are that late Shri Basant Rao was the owner of several land including land bearing survey No. 689 area 3.977 hectares of village Nihalpur Mundi. Shri Basant Rao had expired and he was survived by wife Smt. Leela Bai, son Mukesh and daughter Smt. Pushpa. Smt. Leela Bai and Mukesh had also expired and they are survived by respondents No. 5 to 9. Late Smt. Leelabai, late Shri Mukesh and Smt. Pushpabai had executed a registered general power of attorney on 16-1-1997 in favour of Shri Munnalal, respondent No. 3. The entire area of Survey No. 689 except 1.406 hectare was already sold to various persons. On the basis of the aforesaid power of attorney, the respondent No. 3 sold the remaining land i.e. 1.406 hectares to Shri Radheshyam, respondent No. 2 by registered sale deed the possession thereof was handed over to him by registered sale deed 26-12-1998 and thereafter his name was also mutated in the revenue record. Thereafter, Leelabai, Mukesh and Smt.Pushpa Bai cancelled the said registered power of attorney by a registered cancellation deed dated 30-12-1998. Thereafter, Radheshyam, respondent No. 2 who was also owner of survey No. 689/1/2/2 along with 689/1/1 area respectively 0.050 hectare and 1.406 hectare had sold the said land by registered sale deed dated 31-3-2006 to the petitioner. It may also be mentioned that the said land was duly recorded in the name of the petitioner in the revenue record and the petitioner is in possession thereof.
3. It appears that on 9-1-2002 in connivance with respondent No. 1 the respondents No. 4 to 9 illegally, fraudulently and without any authority had sold 1 hectare of land out of survey No. 689/1/1 to respondent No. 1. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 applied for mutation. In mutation proceedings, the petitioner filed objections. After considering the objections, Tehsildar vide order dated 14-6-2006 rejected the mutation application filed by the respondent No. 1. It has also been held that the respondents No. 4 to 9 had no subsisting title to the land and respondent No. 1 should file a civil suit and get the sale deeds set aside.
4. Respondent No. 1 filed an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer. The said appeal was also dismissed on 16-7-2007. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 filed a second appeal before the Additional Commissioner, which was also dismissed on 8-6-2015. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 filed a revision before the Revenue Board, Gwalior. The revision was also dismissed on 14-6-2016. Respondent No. 1 filed the present civil suit for setting aside the sale deeds, declaration and permanent injunction on the ground that power of attorney dated 16-1-1997 was cancelled on 30-12-1998, therefore, the sale deed executed by respondent No. 3 in favour of respondent No. 2 was illegal.
5. After notice, the petitioner appeared before the trial Court and filed application under Order 7, Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code on the ground that the present suit filed in the year 2016 is clearly barred by time under the provisions of the Limitation Act because in any case the respondent No. 1 was aware about the sale deeds in the year 2006, but the respondent No. 1 has sought to challenge the registered sale deeds of the year 1998 and 2006 by filing the suit in 2016. After taking the reply and hearing the learned counsel for the both the parties, the trial Court rejected the application filed by the petitioner/defendant holding that it is mixed question of fact and law which can be decided after taking the evidence of both the parties.
6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order, the petitioner has filed this revision on the ground that the impugned order pass
A suit challenging a sale deed must be filed within the limitation period; failure to do so results in the suit being barred.
A perusal of the observations made indicates that the Court while laying down the above proposition has used the word ‘ordinarily’ and has not laid down that even in a case where the issue of limitat....
A suit filed more than three years post-execution of a sale-deed is barred by limitation regardless of claims of security, emphasizing the necessity of timely legal action.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right to sue first accrues when the fact first comes to the knowledge of the plaintiff, and if a suit is filed beyond the limitation perio....
A plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 if it is barred by limitation or fails to disclose a cause of action, emphasizing the necessity for clear and truthful averments.
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
