Gujarat High Court
Kiritbhai Chandrakant Vyas vs Daxaben Chhotabhai Patel on 15 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/520/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 520 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
KIRITBHAI CHANDRAKANT VYAS & ORS.
Versus
DAXABEN CHHOTABHAI PATEL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SP MAJMUDAR(3456) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR MD CHAUHAN(1345) for the Opponent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Date : 15/10/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present Revision Application is filed to challenge the order dated 08.08.2017, passed by the Seventh Additional Civil Judge, Vadodara, in Regular Civil Suit No. 370 of 2013, whereby the application filed by the defendant under the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been rejected.
2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to by their original status in the suit.
3. The brief facts giving rise to the present revision application are that the plaintiff filed the suit for the cancellation of a sale-deed dated 24.02.1994, executed by the father of the plaintiffs in favor of the defendant. It is the plaintiffs' case that the suit property belonged to their Page 1 of 12 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 02:28:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/520/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 undefined father, Chotabhai Ishwarbhai Patel, who expired on 29.07.2002. It was only before filing the suit that the plaintiffs came to know, upon obtaining the 7/12 extracts of the suit property, that the property was in the name of the defendants. At that time, the plaintiffs learned that by Registration No.3350/1994, the suit property had been sold by their father to Defendant No. 1, and a revenue entry to that effect was also made in the revenue record as Entry No. 2627 on 01.03.1994. Therefore, the plaintiffs have filed the suit seeking the following reliefs:
"to declare that the plaintiffs are the owner-occupiers of the suit property, to declare the sale deed executed in favor of Defendant No. 1 as illegal, to declare that the defendants do not have any right, title, or authority in the premises pursuant to the sale deed executed on 24.02.1994, and that possession of the property may not be taken from the plaintiffs without due process of law".
4. The defendant appeared in the said suit and filed an application under the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, vide Exh. 14. After considering the plaint and the documentary evidence filed with it, the Trial Court rejected the said application. Hence, the present Revision Application.
5. The learned advocate for the defendant has mainly argued that the suit filed by the plaintiff is hopelessly time-barred, given that the plaintiffs themselves have stated in Paragraph 1 of the plaint that their father, Chotabhai Ishwarbhai Patel, received the property by inheritance, and a sale deed was signed by him. The plaintiffs would not have any right in the said property. The fact that the registration of a sale-deed is a matter of deemed public knowledge, therefore also the Trial Court could not have rejected the application filed under the provisions of Order 7, Page 2 of 12 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 02:28:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/520/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 undefined Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Moreover, it has also been argued by the learned advocate for the defendant that it has come on record that the father of the plaintiff expired on 29.07.2002, and until his death, he had not challenged the said sale deed or the revenue entry made pursuant to the sale deed executed on 24.02.1994. Therefore, the plaintiffs could not have filed the suit challenging the said sale deed after a period of 19 years. Additionally, the learned advocate for the defendant has relied on the judgments reported in 2025 5 SCC 198 in the case of Uma Devi vs. Anand Kumar and 2025 0 JUHJ 28359 in the case of Mohan Lal Babubhai Nawadiwala vs. Shushilaben Patel. Therefore, it has been argued that the present Revision Application should be allowed and the plaint should be rejected.
6. Per contra, the learned advocate for the plaintiff has argued that while deciding an application under the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11, the Court is only required to look at the plaint and the documents annexed with it. The fact remains that the plaintiffs have come forward with the case that the suit property, being ancestral property, gives them a right to the property and that their father could not have executed the sale deed, especially since some of the plaintiffs were minors at the time the sale deed was executed.
7. The learned advocate for the plaintiff has also argued that in the plaint, the plaintiffs have stated that they came to know about the execution of the sale deed only recently and, therefore, the suit they have filed is within the period of limitation.
8. The learned advocate for the plaintiff has relied on the judgment Page 3 of 12 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 02:28:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/520/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 undefined reported in 2025 Live Law (SC) 630 in the case of Vinod Infra Developer Ltd. vs. Mahaveer Lunia and others and has therefore argued that the Trial Court rightly rejected the application and that the Civil Revision Application should be dismissed.
9. The learned advocate for the plaintiff has relied on the judgment reported in the case of M/S. Vraj Developers, A Partnership Firm, Through Partner & Ors. Vs. Rameshbhai Gopalbhai Patel & Ors.
"50. Having noticed the aforesaid position of law, it is important now to see what is the position of law on 'deemed knowledge of registered documents. Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again laid down the law relating to deemed knowledge, cause of action and ultimately, limitation. It is necessary for me to consider the said law before I proceed for a finding on that proposition.
51. Genesis of this doctrine or proposition seems to lay in the fact that a person cannot after an indefinite period of time rise to challenge everything or every document which has been executed while that person was in a slumber. Therefore, some questions which can legitimately arise such a situation are (1) Whether the Plaintiff could have reasonably known about a transaction? (ii) Could that factum of execution of the transaction be discovered by the Plaintiff by due diligence? (iii) What is the nature of right that the Plaintiff claims to hold over the property? (iv) Is his claim of belated knowledge consistent with such right that the Plaintiff professes to have?, etc.
52. Originally, Hon'ble Apex Court in Dilboo (Dead) and Ors. VS. Dhanraji (Dead) and Ors. MANU/SC/3318/2000 held as follows :
It is always for the party who files the suit to show that the suit is within tune Thus in cases where the suit is filed beyond the period of 12 years the Plaintiff would have to aver and then prove that the suit is within 12 years of Page 4 of 12 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 02:28:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/520/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 undefined his/her knowledge. In the absence of any averment or proof, to show that the suit is within time it is the Plaintiff who would fall Whenever a document is registered the date of registration becomes the date of deemed knowledge In other cases where a fact could be discovered by due diligence then deemed knowledge would be attributed to the Plaintiff because a party cannot be allowed to extend period of limitation by merely claiming that he had no knowledge
53. This principle as laid down in Dilboo (supra) has been followed in several judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court [See Padhiar Prahladji Chenaji v. Maniben Jagmalbhai (2022) 12 SCC 128. etc.] This has been the settled proposition of law since many years and decades now
54. However, the other side of the position on acquisition of knowledge is also required to be noticed at this juncture.
59. This principle is recently elaborated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi v. Anand Kumar, (2025) 5 SCC 198 as follows:
"13. A registered document provides a complete account of a transaction to any party interested in the property. This Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. (2) v. State of Haryana [Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. (2) v. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 656 : (2012) 1 SCC (Civ) 351 :
(2012) 169 Comp Cas 133 : (2012) 340 ITR 1] held as under : (SCC pp. 664-65, para 15)
15. ... '17. ... Registration of a document [when it is required by law to be, and has been effected by a registered instrument] [Ed. : Section 3 Explanation I TPA, reads as follows:"S. 3 Expln. I--Where any transaction relating to immovable property is required by law to be and has been effected by a registered instrument, any person acquiring such property or any part of, or share or interest in, such property shall be Page 5 of 12 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 02:28:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/520/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 undefined deemed to have notice of such instrument as from the date of registration...."(emphasis supplied)]] gives notice to the world that such a document has been executed
18. Registration provides safety and security to transactions relating to immovable property, even if he document is lost or destroyed. It gives publicity and public exposure to documents thereby preventing forgeries and frauds in regard to transactions and execution of documents. Registration provides information to people who may deal with a property, as to the nature and extent of the rights which persons may have, affecting that property. In other words, it enables people to find out whether any particular property with which they are concerned, has been subjected to any legal obligation or liability and who is or are the person(s) presently having right, title, and interest in the property. It gives solemnity of form and perpetuate documents which are of legal importance or relevance by recording them, where people may see the record and enquire and ascertain what the particulars are and as far as land is concerned what obligations exist with regard to them.
It ensures that every person dealing with immovable property can rely with confidence upon the statements contained in the registers (maintained under the said Act) as a full and complete account of all transactions by which the title to the property may be affected and secure extracts/copies duly certified.'[Ed. : As observed in Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. (1) v. State of Haryana, (2009) 7 SCC 363, pp. 367-68, paras 17-18.]
14. Applying this settled principle of law, it can safely be assumed that the predecessors of the plaintiffs had notice of the registered sale deeds (executed in 1978), flowing from the partition that took place way back in 1968, by virtue of them being registered documents. In the lifetime of Mangalamma, these sale deeds have not been challenged, neither has partition been sought. Thus, the suit (filed in Page 6 of 12 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 02:28:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/520/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 undefined the year 2023) of the plaintiffs was prima facie barred by law. The plaintiffs cannot reignite their rights after sleeping on them for 45 years.
60. Even coordinate bench of this Court in several judgments has adopted the presumption of deemed knowledge to reject a Plaint which is otherwise vexatious and frivolous. In Whiteswan Buildcon LLP vs. Thakor Praveenji Mangaji MANU/GJ/2573/2022 this Court held as under:
14. As held by the Supreme Court in case of Dilboo (Smt.) (dead) by Lrs (supra), whenever a document is registered, the date of registration becomes the date of deemed knowledge. In other cases, where a fact could be discovered by due diligence, then deemed knowledge would be attributed to the plaintiff, because a party cannot be allowed to extend period of limitation by merely claiming that he had no knowledge. It is held that in other cases where a fact could be discovered by due diligence then deemed knowledge would be attributed to the plaintiff because a party cannot be allowed to extend period of limitation by merely claiming that he had no knowledge. In the present case, the cause of action, as narrated in the plaint, more particularly Paragraph No. 4 thereof, states that the plaintiffs came to know for the first time about the registered document in the year 2018 when they applied for Village Form No. 7/12 extract. The plaintiffs in the plaint, is seeking setting aside of the registered sale deed and as a consequence are also claiming a share in the suit land. The averments in the plaint reflect that she has alleged that heirs of late Bhagwanji Maganji and Pratapji Maganji came to be brought on the revenue record on 07.06.2005 and it is further stated that late mother of the plaintiffs, though was heir of Bhagwanji Maganji, her name was not brought on record and she died on 17.03.2003 but in changed Entry No. 2157, the names of the plaintiffs are not recorded or entered and they came to know on 17.07.2018 when the certified copy of Village Form No. 7/12 was obtained. The facts, as narrated in the plaint, will suggest that since 2003 till 2018, no efforts are made by the plaintiffs to see that after the demise of their mother in Page 7 of 12 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 02:28:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/520/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 undefined 2003 their names are mutated in the revenue entries, and it is hard to believe that though the plaintiffs are claiming share their claim in the suit land, they would not care to examine the revenue records for a period of almost 15 years. Thus, by a clever drafting and in order to see that the limitation period gets frustrated, the suit has been instituted on a sole reason of obtaining Village Form No. 7/12 extract on 17.07.2018 by alleging that they were kept in dark for 15 years, after the registration of the sale deed on 25.05.2006. It cannot be said that the plaintiffs have discovered the fact of execution of the registered sale on due diligence by obtaining such extract after a period of 15 years. Hence, the suit, which is otherwise barred under the provisions of Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act, by way of clever drafting and by devising the cause of action, on the basis of procuring village Form No. 7/12 in the year 2018; the suit only appears to have been instituted to frustrate the rights of the defendants. With regard to the prayer of seeking proportionate share in the suit land, the same is a consequential relief which entirely depends on the setting aside the registered sale, hence the suit cannot be allowed to be continued for the residuary prayer."
10. Hence, in the present case, no shadow or doubt is cast over the presumption of deemed knowledge. The Plaintiff has not disclosed any cause of action. In fact, the cause of action pleaded by the Plaintiff is illusory and by clever drafting, the present suit is sought to be tried.
Article 59 of the Limitation Act
11. In view of the above referred facts Article 59 of Schedule of Limitation Act would be required to be considered.
Description Period of Time from which period begins to
of suit limitation run
59
To cancel or Three Years. When the facts entitling the
Page 8 of 12
Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 02:28:36 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/520/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025
undefined
set aside an Plaintiff to have the instrument or
instrument or decree cancelled or set aside or the
decree or for contract rescinded first become
the rescission known to him.
of a contract.
12. In Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanushali, 2020 (7) SCC 366, it is held as under:
"In Khatri Hotels Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr., (2011) 9 SCC 126, this Court held that the use of the word first between the words sue and accrued, would mean that if a suit is based on multiple causes of action, the period of limitation will begin to run from the date when the right to sue first accrues.
That is, if there are successive violations of the right, it would not give rise to a fresh cause of action, and the suit will be liable to be dismissed, if it is beyond the period of limitation counted from the date when the right to sue first accrued.
13. In view of the said provision it makes it clear that the aggrieved person is supposed to file a suit to cancel or set aside an instrument within a period of three years from the date on which he comes to know about registration of Sale Deed.
14. The present suit is filed after 19 years after the first Sale Deed took place. It is also required to be considered that during their lifetime, the grandfather and the father of the Plaintiffs have never challenged the Sale Deed executed i.e.24.02.1994, nor have they challenged the revenue entry Entry No. 2627 dated 01.03.1994.
15. While taking into consideration an Application under Order VII Page 9 of 12 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 02:28:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/520/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 undefined Rule 11(d) of the Code, the Court has to consider the averments in the Plaint and the documents produced along with the Plaint but there cannot be any dispute that if the Court finds that considering the averments in the Plaint the suit is clearly barred by law of limitation the Plaint can be rejected in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code.
16. In the present case the suit properties have been transferred by registered documents and therefore the date of registration becomes the date of deemed knowledge and in the present case the fact of registration of Sale Deeds could be discovered by due diligence by the Plaintiffs and therefore the Plaintiff would be deemed to have necessary knowledge.
17. The present Plaintiff has by clever drafting tried to bring the suit within the period of limitation which otherwise is barred by law of limitation. In the present case no particulars of fraud have been given in the Plaint and the Plaintiff had only stated that the fraud have been committed on the Plaintiffs. The law is very clear under the Order VI Rule 4 of the Code which reads as under:
"4. Particulars to be given where necessary. - In all cases in which the party pleading relies on any misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, willful default, or undue influence, and in all other cases in which particulars may be necessary beyond such as are exemplified in the forms aforesaid, particulars (with dates and items if necessary) shall be stated in the pleading."
18. Therefore, there has to be details of fraud as the fraud relies on misrepresentation, fraud breach of trust, undue reference and therefore, the particular are to be given.
19. The present is the case of shrewd and crafty drafting, the averments Page 10 of 12 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 02:28:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/520/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 undefined made in the Plaint clearly show that by clever drafting the Plaintiff has tried to show that the suit is within the period of limitation. The Court has to consider and read in meaningful manner the averments made in the Plaint and the present suit having been filed challenging 36 Sale Deeds including the first Sale Deed executed in the year 1964 the Plaint is hopelessly time barred. The bar of limitation has got its own significance and the object as such by referring smart averments, such statutory provision cannot be sidelined. Though the issue of limitation is mixed question of law and fact but only by that fact an application under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code cannot be rejected as it would frustrate the very purpose of the said provision and permit such kind of frivolous litigation which are hopelessly barred by law of limitation and the same will have to be decided irrespective of its tenability.
20. In Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. Vs. Central Bank of India And Anr., AIR Online 2020 SC 576 Hon'ble Apex Court stated that the Trial Court cannot selectively read averments of the Plaint as pleaded in cause of action and in fact, the same must be read completely and meaningfully. However, in the present case, even upon an entire reading of the Plaint, the cause of action is not disclosed and it is only illusory and sham.
21. Similary in Salim D. Agboatwala and Ors. Vs. Shamalji Oddhavji Thakkar and Ors, AIR Online 2021 SC 731 Hon'ble Court held that the limitation was a mixed question of law and fact. It was held in those given facts that the Plaintiff became aware of the transaction when it gained knowledge of the proceedings. However, in the present case, the Plaintiff has stated that for a period of over 41 years and revenue entry Page 11 of 12 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 02:28:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/520/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 undefined entered in the year 1959 was not within knowledge of the Plaintiff. This is clearly is clever drafting and hence, must be nipped in the bud.
22. Even the Judgements of Daliben (supra) and Chhotanben (supra) are not applicable in facts of the present case as discussed above.
CONCLUSION
23. Therefore, as discussed above, the present case is a case of clever drafting by the Plaintiff to extend and shroud the actual period of limitation. The Plaintiff cannot be permitted to challenge registered sale deeds after a period of over 19 years in view of the discussion above.
24. In view of the foregoing, the present Plaint is barred by Limitation and hence, the same is required to be rejected under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11. Consequently, the present Civil Revision Application deserves to be allowed and is thus allowed. The Plaint in Regular Civil Suit No. 370 of 2013 is hereby rejected. Rule is made absolute.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J) Manoj Kumar Rai Page 12 of 12 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 02:28:36 IST 2025