MANOJ KUMAR NARANG vs AMIT MEHRA & ORS. - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 5498

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 58 - Suit for declaration and cancellation of sale deed - Rejection of plaint on ground of limitation - Right to sue first accrues when the plaintiff becomes aware of the facts entitling him to cancellation - Where the plaintiff himself is the executor of the impugned document, knowledge is imputed from the date of execution - Subsequent discovery of alleged fraud cannot extend limitation if the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the document at its inception - Successive violations do not give rise to fresh cause of action - The period of three years under Article 58 runs from the date when the right to sue first accrued, not from a later discovery. (Paras 34-35)

(B) Order VII Rule 11 - Plaint liable to be rejected if it does not disclose any cause of action or is barred by law - Even if the plaintiff claims constructive possession, where possession is not with him and no relief for possession is sought, the suit for declaration and injunction alone is not maintainable. (Paras 36-37)

(C) Suit by one legal heir without impleading other co-heirs is not maintainable in respect of the deceased's share. (Para 38)

Facts of the case:
The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that two sale deeds dated 31.12.1996 executed by him and his mother in favour of respondent no.1 were void for fraud, and for permanent injunction. The plaintiff claimed he came to know of the fraud in August 2021 when the respondents started reconstruction. The sale deed no.1 was executed by the plaintiff himself. The plaint was rejected by the trial court under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and as devoid of cause of action. The plaintiff appealed.

Issues: (i) When did the ‘Right to Sue first accrue’ in respect of Sale Deed No.1? (ii) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? (iii) Whether the suit is devoid of any cause of action?

Findings of Court:
The plaintiff being the executor of Sale Deed No.1 was aware of its contents on 31.12.1996 itself. The right to sue first accrued on that date. Under Article 58, the period of three years expired in 1999. The suit filed in 2022 is hopelessly time-barred. The claim that the cause of action arose in August 2021 when reconstruction began is not sustainable as the plaintiff already knew of the deed. The suit is also barred because the plaintiff did not seek possession despite not being in possession, and because the plaintiff alone could not represent the estate of his mother without impleading other legal heirs.

Ratio Decidendi: The right to sue for cancellation of a document first accrues when the plaintiff becomes aware of the facts entitling him to cancellation. Where the plaintiff himself executed the document, he is deemed to have known the facts on the date of execution. The period of limitation under Article 58 runs from that date, and subsequent events do not create a fresh cause of action.

Result: Appeal dismissed. The impugned order rejecting the plaint is affirmed. Pending applications disposed of.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Appeal against rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as barred by limitation and devoid of cause of action. (Para 1 , 2 )

2. Appellant contends cause of action arose in 2021; respondents assert suit barred by limitation from 1996. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 )

3. Appeal dismissed; impugned judgment rejecting plaint upheld. (Para 39 , 40 )

4. When does the right to sue first accrue under Article 58 of the Limitation Act for a suit to cancel a sale deed on ground of fraud?

It accrues on the date of execution of the deed if the plaintiff was a party and aware of its execution, regardless of later discovery of fraud. (Para 32 , 34 , 35 )

5. Can a suit for declaration regarding property inherited from a deceased be filed by one legal heir without impleading all other legal heirs?

No, all legal heirs must be joined; the suit cannot proceed alone by one heir. (Para 16 , 38 )

6. Under what circumstances can a plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC based on limitation?

When the plaint on its face shows the suit is barred by limitation or lacks cause of action, the court may reject it to avoid meaningless litigation. (Para 37 )

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 13^th January, 2026 Pronounced on:16^thMarch, 2026 + RFA 33/2026, CM APPL. 1926/2026 MANOJ KUMAR NARANG S/o Late Sh. Tara Chand R/o 20, Cortez Court, Brampton, Ontario, Canada-L6X3Zl. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, Senior Advocate with Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Ms. Megha Bharara and Mr. Gaurav Sindhwani, Advocates.

Versus

1. AMIT MEHRA S/o Yashpal Narang Rio B-74, Greater Kailash - 1, New Delhi - 110058

2. PRADARSHAN MEHRA W/o Sh. Inder Nath Mehra

3. PRIYA MEHRA W/o Sh. Rohit Mehra 4. NITI MEHRA W/oSh. Dhiraj Mehra All R/o1-B/19, Northern Extension Area, Ganga Ram Hospital Road, Rajender Nagar, New Delhi – 110060

5. ANIL KUMAR NARANG S/o Late Sh. Tara Chand R/o 29/20, Third Floor, Old Rajender Nagar, New Delhi ....Respondent Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T

RFA 33/2026:

1. The Appeal has been filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’), against the impugned Judgment dated 17.10.2025 of the Learned District Judge, Delhi, whereby the Plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, as being barred by Section 58 of the Limitation Act,1963, as well as devoid of the cause of action.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Appellant/Plaintiff filed a Suit CS DJ 509/2022, for Declaration and Permanent Injunction for declaring two Sale Deeds dated 31.12.1996, of the property bearing Municipal No. 2628, Ward no XVI, Plot No. 1400/246 measuring 148 sq. yards, situated in Block N, Gali No. 4, Beadonpura, Bank Street, Karol Bagh New Delhi- 110005(hereinafter referred to as „Suit Property‟), purportedly executed by the Plaintiff, i.e. Manoj Kumar Narang and his mother Late Smt. Moran Devias null and void, having been obtained through fraud and Plaintiff be declared as owner to the extent of 1/6th share, having inherited 1/24th share of his mother Late Smt. Moran Devi. The Plaintiff has also sought Permanent Injunction for restraining the Defendants/Respondents Nos. 2 to

4, from creating third-party interest, in the suit property.

3. The Appellant/Plaintiff averred in his Plaint that he and his two brothers, Shri Raj Kumar Narang and Shri Anil Kumar Narang, i.e. Respondent No.5 and their mother Smt. Moran Devi, were the absolute owners of the entire suit Property, comprising of ground floor, first floor and the second floor, along with its terrace roof rights, having purchased it from erstwhile owner, vide four separate Sale Deeds executed on 11.08.1989 and four Sale Deeds dated 07.03.1994.

4. Further, Shri Yashpal Mehra, father of Respondent no.1,was an influential businessman/jeweller, in the area. The Respondent no. 1 and his father, had an evil eye on the property of the Plaintiff. Initially, the attempts of father of Respondent no. 1 were unsuccessful, but after sometime, the father of Respondent no.1 succeeded in pressurizing the family of the Plaintiff, to transfer the 3/4th share, owned by them. The mother of the Plaintiff, Late Smt. Moran Devi was having one room built on the second- floor portion, where she used to reside, for which she had great sentimental value. She agreed to sell the property, subject to the condition that 1/4th portion of the property, on each floor including roof-terrace rights, be retained by them. It was agreed at the time of execution of Sale Deeds itself, that the constructive possession of the suit property shall remain with the Plaintiff and his late mother, as and when the property is reconstructed. Therefore, the Plaintiffs are and were always in constructive possession of the suit property.

5. The Appellant/Plaintiff further claimed, that it came to his knowledge in around August 2021, that the Respondent no. 1 had sold his rights in the suit property in favour of the Respondent no. 2 to 4, vide Sale Deed dated 16.06.2021 and 30.07.2021, who started raising fresh construction, therein. Later on, it transpired that the R

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 5498

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Neena Bansal Krishna, J
MANOJ KUMAR NARANG – Appellant
Versus
AMIT MEHRA & ORS. – Respondent
RFA-33/2026

A plaintiff who executed a deed is deemed to know its contents on execution; the right to sue for cancellation accrues then, and limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act runs from that date, not from later discovery of alleged fraud.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. When does the right to sue first accrue under Article 58 of the Limitation Act for a suit to cancel a sale deed on ground of fraud?

5. Can a suit for declaration regarding property inherited from a deceased be filed by one legal heir without impleading all other legal heirs?

6. Under what circumstances can a plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC based on limitation?

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 5498

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHINeena Bansal Krishna, JMANOJ KUMAR NARANG – AppellantVersusAMIT MEHRA & ORS. – RespondentRFA-33/2026

A plaintiff who executed a deed is deemed to know its contents on execution; the right to sue for cancellation accrues then, and limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act runs from that date, not from later discovery of alleged fraud.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. When does the right to sue first accrue under Article 58 of the Limitation Act for a suit to cancel a sale deed on ground of fraud?

5. Can a suit for declaration regarding property inherited from a deceased be filed by one legal heir without impleading all other legal heirs?

6. Under what circumstances can a plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC based on limitation?

Cases Referred (2)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Neena Bansal Krishna, J
MANOJ KUMAR NARANG – Appellant
Versus
AMIT MEHRA & ORS. – Respondent
RFA-33/2026