A plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC when it is apparent from the averments that the suit is barred by limitation; interference under Section 100 is restricted to substantial questions of law and cannot be used for re-appreciation of evidence in concurrent findings.

27/03/2026

1. The present Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant/ plaintiff under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the impugned judgment and decree dated 26.08.2023 passed by the learned 8th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Durg (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. RCA/96/2022 (Bhojram vs. General Manager & Others), affirming the order and decree dated 12.10.2022 passed by the learned 14th Civil Judge, Class-II, Durg (C.G.), in Civil Suit No. 202-A/2018 (Bhojram vs. General Manager & Others), whereby the civil appeal filed by the appellant/ plaintiff was dismissed. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the Trial Court.

2. The plaintiff instituted the suit seeking declaration that the sale deed dated 13.04.1977 in respect of Khasra No. 789 admeasuring 50 decimals is illegal, void and not binding upon him, along with relief of possession and permanent injunction, pleading inter alia that the suit land originally belonged to his father late Sonuram, who had only executed a lease agreement for a period of 20 years in favour of defendant No.1 in consideration of Rs.1,100/- received from Jamul Cement Company, and not an outright sale. It is further pleaded that the defendants, without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiff’s father and other landholders, got an unlawful sale deed executed treating the lease amount as sale consideration. The plaintiff asserts that upon expiry of the lease period, the land ought to have been restored, however, the defendants continued to retain possession by extending the lease without following due process. It is also pleaded that the plaintiff came to know about the alleged sale deed through documents obtained under the Right to Information Act, whereafter the cause of action arose, and since no lawful acquisition of the land was ever made, the impugned sale deed is liable to be set aside and the plaintiff is entitled to restoration of possession.

3. Per contra, defendant No.1, in his written statement, denied all allegations in the plaint except those specifically admitted. It is submitted that after the sale of the suit land, he became the absolute owner of the property. Any issue relating to extension or renewal of the lease is purely a matter between defendant No.1 and defendant Nos.2 and 3. The sale deed has been fully executed for several decades, and the plaintiff’s allegation that the sale deed is fraudulent reflects only his mala fide intent. The claim is barred by limitation, is grossly time-barred, and suffers from incorrect valuation and insufficient court fee.

4. Defendant Nos.2 and 3, in their joint written statement, denied all allegations and submitted that the name of defendant No.1 is recorded in the revenue records of the suit land, and on that basis, the approved mineral lease was renewed in favor of defendant No.1’s company. In such circumstances, there is no statutory requirement to inform the previous landowner or seller regarding the renewal of the mineral lease. Consequently, defendant Nos.2 and 3 are not necessary parties to the present suit.

5. After framing the issues, on 30/10/2018 defendant No. 1 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC contending that the suit is legally untenable. It was submitted that the land transfer was completed in accordance with law, the plaintiff concealed material facts regarding government acquisition and compensation, and arbitrarily assessed the suit land’s value with insufficient court fees.

6. The Plaintiff, in response to the said ap