2017 (9) TMI 2009 - HC - Indian Laws

Suit is barred by time limitation or not - rejection of plaint - Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 9A and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure - HELD THAT - In the oral evidence adduced by the appellant also the appellant admits that in the year 2011 he learned about the Will. So the own pleadings of the appellant and his admissions given in his oral evidence would together show that on 26.7.2011 he was well aware that the suit property could not be alienated in any manner by its occupant and that there were attempts made by the occupant to sell the suit property. Such knowledge of the appellant constituted a clear right to sue to get a relief which is the main relief in prayer clause (1) to the effect that as per Will dated 4.3.1946 the suit property cannot be let out sold mortgaged bequeathed or alienated in any manner. For getting such a declaration it was enough for the appellant to apprehend founded on reasonable basis that the suit property was likely to be alienated and such apprehension would have constituted and in fact it being already there has constituted in the present case a cause of action for filing of a suit seeking such a relief by the appellant. So the limitation for this relief in the present case began to run on 26.7.2011 and that means suit for this relief should have been filed on or before 25.7.2014. But suit has been filed in January 2015 and therefore the main relief sought in the present suit would have to be said as barred by law of limitation as prescribed under Article 58 of the Limitation Act - Once it is found that the main relief sought in the suit itself is barred by limitation the other reliefs being consequential in nature could also not be granted and thus for those reliefs also the suit would not be maintainable in law. There are no error of fact or law could be noticed in the impugned judgment and there is no need to make any interference with it. The suit filed by the appellant is barred by the law of limitation - there is no merit in the appeal and it deserves to be dismissed - Appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Bar of Limitation
2. Validity of Will and Sale Deed
3. Cause of Action
4. Foundational Relief and Consequential Relief

Detailed Analysis:

1. Bar of Limitation:
The primary issue was whether the suit filed by the appellant was barred by limitation. The trial court had dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred by limitation, which was challenged in this appeal. The appellant argued that the right to sue first accrued on 17.3.2012 when an agreement to sell was executed by respondent No. 1 in favor of respondent No. 2, followed by a sale deed dated 11.4.2012. According to the appellant, under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, the limitation period for obtaining such declarations is three years from when the right to sue first accrues. The appellant contended that the trial court erred in holding that the suit was barred by limitation.

2. Validity of Will and Sale Deed:
The appellant sought declarations that the Will dated 4.3.1946 forbade the alienation of the suit property and that the sale deed dated 11.4.2012 executed by respondent No. 1 in favor of respondent No. 2 was null and void. The respondents argued that the appellant failed to challenge the Will dated 10.9.1999 executed by Laxmibai in favor of respondent No. 1, which was the basis for the sale deed. The trial court held that without challenging the Will of 1999, the suit did not disclose a complete cause of action for the reliefs sought.

3. Cause of Action:
The appellant contended that the cause of action arose on 26.7.2011 when he received documents from the Nagpur Municipal Corporation, including the Will dated 4.3.1946, which indicated that the suit property could not be sold or alienated. The respondents argued that the suit filed in January 2015 was beyond the limitation period prescribed under Article 58 of the Limitation Act since the cause of action arose on 26.7.2011. The trial court found that the suit was indeed barred by limitation as it was filed after the three-year period.

4. Foundational Relief and Consequential Relief:
The trial court noted that the main relief sought was a declaration that the suit property could not be alienated as per the Will dated 4.3.1946. The other reliefs sought were consequential to this main relief. Since the main relief was barred by limitation, the consequential reliefs also could not be granted. Additionally, the appellant's failure to challenge the Will dated 10.9.1999 rendered the suit incomplete and not maintainable in law.

Conclusion:
The High Court upheld the trial court's judgment, finding no error of fact or law. The suit filed by the appellant was barred by the law of limitation, and the appeal was dismissed with parties bearing their own costs. The court emphasized that the appellant's failure to challenge the Will dated 10.9.1999 and the fact that the suit was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period were crucial factors in the decision.