9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 1710 - SC - Indian LawsRejection of plaint - recovery of possession of suit property - Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure - HELD THAT - Both the Courts below have materially erred in not rejecting the plaint in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. It is required to be noted that it is not in dispute that the gift deed was executed by the original plaintiff himself along with his brother. The deed of gift was a registered gift deed. The execution of the gift deed is not disputed by the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that the gift deed was a showy deed of gift and therefore the same is not binding on him. However, it is required to be noted that for approximately 22 years, neither the plaintiff nor his brother (who died on 15.12.2002) claimed at any point of time that the gift deed was showy deed of gift. One of the executants of the gift deed brother of the plaintiff during his lifetime never claimed that the gift deed was a showy deed of gift. Considering the averments in the plaint and the bundle of facts stated in the plaint, we are of the opinion that by clever drafting the plaintiff has tried to bring the suit within the period of limitation which, otherwise, is barred by law of limitation. Both the High Court as well as the learned trial Court have erred in not exercising the powers under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC and in not rejecting the plaint in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC - impugned order cannot sustain - appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Application for substitution. 2. Rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC. 3. Barred by law of limitation under Article 59 of the Limitation Act. 4. Maintainability of the suit under Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act and Section 47 of the Registration Act. 5. Mixed question of law and facts regarding limitation. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Application for Substitution: The application for substitution was allowed as per the prayer made. Leave was subsequently granted. 2. Rejection of Plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC: The appellant (original defendant) sought the rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC, arguing that the suit was barred by the law of limitation and that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action. The trial court and the High Court both dismissed this application, leading to the present appeal. 3. Barred by Law of Limitation under Article 59 of the Limitation Act: The appellant argued that the suit, filed in 2003 to challenge a gift deed executed in 1981, was barred by the limitation period of three years under Article 59 of the Limitation Act. The trial court held that oral evidence was required to determine the limitation issue, and thus, the plaint could not be rejected at the threshold. The High Court affirmed this decision. 4. Maintainability of the Suit under Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act and Section 47 of the Registration Act: The appellant contended that the suit was not maintainable under Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act and Section 47 of the Registration Act. The trial court and High Court did not specifically address these statutory bars in their decisions. 5. Mixed Question of Law and Facts Regarding Limitation: The respondent (original plaintiff) argued that the question of limitation was a mixed question of law and facts, requiring evidence from both parties. The respondent claimed to have only become aware of the gift deed in 2001 when the appellant asserted his rights based on it. The trial court and High Court agreed that this necessitated a full trial. Supreme Court's Analysis and Judgment: Rejection of Plaint: The Supreme Court emphasized that under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, only the averments in the plaint should be considered. It noted that the plaintiff had admitted to executing the gift deed in 1981 and had not challenged it for 22 years. The Court found that the plaintiff's claim of discovering the gift deed in 2001 was not credible, given the earlier partition suit in which the plaintiff was a party. Barred by Law of Limitation: The Court concluded that the suit was clearly barred by the three-year limitation period under Article 59 of the Limitation Act. It held that clever drafting could not circumvent the limitation law and that the plaintiff's failure to seek a declaration to set aside the gift deed was a deliberate attempt to avoid the limitation bar. Mixed Question of Law and Facts: The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the limitation issue was a mixed question of law and facts. It held that if the plaint, on its face, showed the suit to be time-barred, it could be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) without requiring evidence. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the High Court and the trial court, allowed the appellant's application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, and rejected the plaint in Title Suit No. 19 of 2003. The appeal was allowed with no costs.
|
