Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the original defendant, Raghwendra Sharan Singh, against the judgment of the Patna High Court which had dismissed his revision petition and confirmed the trial court's order rejecting his application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint. The dispute arose from a suit filed by the plaintiff, Ram Prasanna Singh (since deceased, represented by LRs), seeking a declaration that a registered deed of gift dated 06.03.1981 executed by him and his brother in favor of the defendant was a sham transaction and not binding. The plaintiff also sought confirmation of possession or recovery of possession. The defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Order XIV Rule 2 CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as the gift deed was executed in 1981 and the suit was filed in 2003, after 22 years. The trial court rejected the application, holding that the question of limitation required oral evidence. The High Court upheld this order. The Supreme Court, however, reversed both orders. The Court held that for considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only the averments in the plaint are to be considered, not the defence. The plaint itself stated that the plaintiff came to know about the gift deed in 2001 when the defendant instituted a partition suit and asserted his rights based on the deed. The suit was filed in 2003, which is beyond three years from 2001, thus barred by Article 59. The Court emphasized that clever drafting cannot create an illusion of a cause of action, and the court must nip such meritless suits in the bud. Relying on precedents like T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned orders, and rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC - Limitation - Suit for declaration that gift deed is sham and not binding filed 22 years after execution - Plaintiff pleaded knowledge in 2001 - Held that for considering Order 7 Rule 11 application, only plaint averments are relevant; if from plaint it appears that suit is barred by limitation, plaint must be rejected - The court must nip clever drafting in the bud (Paras 6.1-6.4). B) Limitation Act - Article 59 - Suit to set aside gift deed - Three years from knowledge - Plaintiff's own averments show knowledge of gift deed in 2001 when defendant asserted rights in partition suit - Suit filed in 2003 beyond three years from 2001 - Held that suit is barred by limitation and plaint liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC (Paras 6.2-6.4). C) Evidence Act - Sections 91, 92 - Bar against oral evidence to contradict registered document - Not applicable at stage of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC - However, court can consider plaint averments to determine if suit is barred by law (Para 3.1). D) Registration Act - Section 47 - Effect of registration - Not relevant for limitation at Order 7 Rule 11 stage (Para 3.1).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaint in a suit challenging a registered gift deed executed 22 years prior is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC as barred by limitation under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, even when the plaintiff pleads that he came to know of the deed only in 2001.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 12.03.2013 and order of the trial court dated 28.08.2006 are set aside. The application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is allowed and the plaint in Title Suit No. 19 of 2003 is rejected.
Law Points
- Order 7 Rule 11 CPC
- Rejection of Plaint
- Limitation
- Article 59 Limitation Act
- Clever Drafting
- Mixed Question of Law and Fact
- Averments in Plaint Only
