Case Note & Summary
The dispute involved a civil suit filed by the plaintiff, son of deceased Pramod Kesurdas Sanghavi, against his sisters and a nephew as defendants, seeking declaration that a Will dated 04.02.2014 and a Codicil dated 20.09.2014 executed by his father were null and void, along with consequential permanent injunction. The plaintiff instituted Suit No.1758/2017 in the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, on 21.11.2017. The defendants filed applications under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, contending the suit was barred by limitation as the plaintiff acquired knowledge of the Will and Codicil in the first week of November 2014, but filed the suit more than three years later. The trial court allowed the applications and rejected the plaint, holding the suit was barred under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The High Court reversed this order, directing restoration of the plaint for decision on merits and allowing evidence on limitation. The Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether the suit was barred by limitation based on plaint averments. The defendants argued the suit was time-barred as the right to sue first accrued on 04.02.2014, and the plaint did not show it was within limitation. The plaintiff contended the suit was within time and evidence should be allowed. The Court analyzed the plaint, noting it stated cause of action arose on 04.02.2014, 20.09.2014, and 21.10.2014, with knowledge in November 2014. Applying Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which provides a three-year limitation for declaration suits from when the right to sue first accrues, the Court held the right first accrued on 04.02.2014. Since the suit was filed on 21.11.2017, beyond three years, it was barred by limitation. The Court emphasized that under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, rejection is based on plaint averments, and here, they showed the suit was patently time-barred. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the trial court's order rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Plaint Rejection - Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order VII Rule 11 - The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that a Will and Codicil were null and void, with defendants applying for plaint rejection on limitation grounds - The trial court allowed rejection, but the High Court reversed, directing evidence on limitation - The Supreme Court held that the plaint averments showed the suit was barred by limitation as the right to sue first accrued on 04.02.2014, and the suit filed on 21.11.2017 was beyond three years, requiring rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC (Paras 15-23). B) Limitation Law - Declaration Suits - Article 58 Limitation Act - Limitation Act, 1963, Article 58 - The suit sought declaration of a Will and Codicil as null and void, not falling under Articles 56 or 57 - The Court applied Article 58, which provides a three-year limitation from when the right to sue first accrues - Held that the right to sue first accrued on 04.02.2014 (Will execution), making the suit filed on 21.11.2017 time-barred based on plaint averments (Paras 18-20). C) Civil Procedure - Cause of Action - Computation of Limitation - Limitation Act, 1963, Article 58 - The plaint stated cause of action arose on 04.02.2014, 20.09.2014, and 21.10.2014, with knowledge of Will and Codicil in first week of November 2014 - The Court reasoned that limitation under Article 58 runs from the first accrual of right to sue, which was 04.02.2014, not from later dates or knowledge - Held that the suit was patently barred by limitation as it was filed more than three years after the first accrual (Paras 21-23).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit instituted on 21.11.2017 for declaration of a Will and Codicil as null and void is barred by limitation under Article 58 of Limitation Act, 1963, based on averments in the plaint, warranting rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC
Final Decision
Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the trial court's order rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, holding the suit was barred by limitation
Law Points
- Limitation period for declaration suits under Article 58 of Limitation Act
- 1963
- Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908
- Computation of limitation from date right to sue first accrues
- Distinction between primary and consequential reliefs
