Gujarat High Court
Heirs Of Deceased Ramshakti Jivandas vs Heirs Of Deceased Bhalabhai Dahyabhai on 6 May, 2026
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1485/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
undefined
Reserved On : 24/03/2026
Pronounced On : 06/05/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1485 of 2018
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2018
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1485 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
HEIRS OF DECEASED RAMSHAKTI JIVANDAS & ORS.
Versus
HEIRS OF DECEASED BHALABHAI DAHYABHAI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DC DAVE, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR JIGAR P RAVAL(2008) for
the Appellant(s) No. 1.1,1.2
MR MAYUR RAJGURU(1198) for the Appellant(s) No. 1.1,1.2
VEDANT J RAJGURU(9375) for the Appellant(s) No. 1.1,1.2
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESENTATIVES for
the Defendant(s) No. 1.1
MR MEHUL SURESH SHAH, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR MR VISHAL C
MEHTA(6152) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1.2,2.1,2.2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
CAV JUDGMENT
Page 1 of 49
Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:34:08 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1485/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)
1.Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Dhaval C. Dave with learned advocate Mr. Jigar P. Raval for the appellants and learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mehul Suresh Shah with learned advocate Mr. Vishal C. Mehta for the respondent no.3.
2.This appeal is filed by the original plaintiffs being aggrieved by judgment and order dated 22.03.2018 passed below Exhs.47 and 48 in Civil Suit No.1197 of 2017 by Court No.17, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad allowing the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (For short "the Code") for rejection of the plaint and as a consequence thereof the decree is passed below Exh.1 rejecting the suit. Page 2 of 49 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:34:08 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1485/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined
3. The appellants are referred to as the plaintiffs and the respondents are referred to as the defendants for the sake of convenience.
Facts:
4.Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs who are the legal heirs of late Ramshakti Jivandas Sheth, instituted Regular Civil Suit No.1197/2017 for declaration that sale deed dated 29.12.2010 registered at Serial No.13982 with the office of Sub- Registrar, Ahmedabad-5, Narol is illegal.
5.It is the case of the plaintiffs that land admeasuring 17300 sq. mtrs. of Survey No.111 and Survey No.111A situated at Village Narol, District Sub-District Ahmedabad along with land admeasuring 405 sq. mtrs of Pot Kharaba, total land admeasuring 17705 sq. mtrs was of the ownership of defendant no.1 late Page 3 of 49 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:34:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1485/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined Bhalabhai Dahyabhai and thereafter of his legal heirs defendant nos. 1/1 and defendant no. 1/2, defendant no.2 - late Bimani, widow of Ravjibhai and thereafter her legal heirs defendant no. 2/1 and defendant no.2/2.
6.During the pendency of the appeal, defendant no.1/1- Bhupendrabhai Bhalabhai Patel expired and therefore, his legal heirs being defendant nos. 1.1.1 to 1.1.4 were brought on record. Defendant no.1.1.3-Nimesh Bhupendrabhai Patel also expired during the pendency of the appeal and therefore, his legal heirs being 1.1.3/1 and 1.1.3/2 are also brought on record.
7.It is the case of the plaintiffs that entire land was purchased by the predecessor of the defendants by registered sale deed dated 15.05.1959.
Page 4 of 49 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:34:08 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1485/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined
8.It is the case of the plaintiffs that late father of the plaintiffs- Sheth Ramshakti Jivandas along with the plaintiffs purchased the land admeasuring 10346 sq. mtrs out of the entire land (here-in-after referred to as "the suit land") along with right of passage by registered agreement to sale dated 14.05.1984 at the rate of Rs.16/- per sq mtr. for total consideration of Rs.1,65,536/- and had also paid 80% of the sale consideration amounting to Rs.1,32,430/- by cheque to defendant nos. 1/1, 1/2, 2/1 and 2/2 and their predecessor and defendants had executed irrevocable Power of Attorney, supplementary agreement and affidavit to the effect that vacant possession of the suit land was handed over to the plaintiffs as owners. It is the case of the plaintiffs that since 1984, the plaintiffs are de facto owners of the suit land. It is the case of the plaintiffs that in the suit land, the plaintiffs had made Page 5 of 49 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:34:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1485/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined construction and started a company named "Subhang Process Mill Pvt. Ltd." registered under the provisions of the Companies Act and the name of the company of the plaintiffs is shown in the Municipal records as an occupier since 1986 and name of the plaintiffs are shown as the owner in the Municipal records for the taxation purpose.
9.It is also the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs are enjoying the possession of the suit land for more than three decades without any hindrance. It is the case of the plaintiffs that formal registered sale deed could not be executed due to some legal and technical obstacles for a long time in spite of repeated requests being made to the defendants and their predecessors by the plaintiffs for getting NA permission. However, assurance was given by the defendants that ownership rights were already Page 6 of 49 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:34:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1485/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined with the plaintiffs and therefore, there was no need to worry in spite of the fact that after the death of defendant nos. 1 and 2, names of the legal heirs were mutated in record of rights. It is, therefore, the case of the plaintiffs that as per section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 only the sale deed was required to be executed by the defendants, and the plaintiffs were ready and willing to pay 20% balance amount of sale consideration.
10. It is the case of the plaintiffs that when defendant no.3 published the notice in the newspaper "Gujarat Samachar" Daily on 24.06.2017 for obtaining a title clearance certificate, it came to their knowledge that the defendants in defiance of the registered agreement to sale dated 14.05.1984 executed two registered sale deeds on 29.12.2010 in favour of defendant no.3 - Amrutbhai Page 7 of 49 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:34:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1485/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined Prabhudas Patel.
11. The plaintiffs, therefore, filed their objection for issuance of title clearance on 27.06.2017 and 01.07.2017 by publishing a public notice/clarification in newspaper "Gujarat Samachar" daily describing their ownership right over the suit land.
12. The plaintiffs thereafter filed Regular Civil Suit No.1197/2017 before City Civil Court, Ahmedabad on 28.07.2017 for declaration that the plaintiffs be declared as owners of the suit land and further prayed to set aside the sale deed dated 29.12.2010. It is also prayed that permanent injunction be granted against the defendants and their servants, agents restraining them from transferring the ownership right of the suit land in favour of any third party. Page 8 of 49 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:34:08 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1485/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined
13. Defendant no.3 - Amrutbhai Prabhubhai Patel filed application Exh.48 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code for rejection of the plaint on the ground of limitation as the suit was filed on the basis of agreement to sale dated 14.05.1984 in the year 2017 i.e. almost after 30 years.
14. Learned City Civil Court, Ahmedabad by Judgment and Order dated 22.03.2018 allowed the application Exh. 48 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. It was observed by the learned Judge that there is contradiction in the averments made in the plaint and registered agreement to sale at Mark 4/1 wherein it is stated that possession was not handed over to the plaintiffs and only at the time of execution of the sale deed, possession was to be handed over. It was further observed that entire document i.e. agreement to sale at Mark-4/1 appears to be Page 9 of 49 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:34:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1485/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined very suspicious as on the last page of the same, many signatures appear to have been erased and that the possession of the suit land is claimed by the plaintiffs on the basis of supplementary agreement for possession which is executed on stamp paper of Rs. 10/- on 09.05.1984.
15. Learned Judge has also referred to the Court Commissioner's report wherein the possession of the defendant no.3 was found at the suit land. It was observed that even otherwise the plaintiffs have challenged registered sale deed dated 29.12.2010 in the year 2017 and therefore, the suit is time barred and beyond the period of limitation. Learned Judge as a consequence dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved, the appellants- plaintiffs have preferred this appeal. Page 10 of 49 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:34:08 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1485/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined Submissions of the appellants-plaintiffs:
16. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Dhaval C. Dave with learned advocate Mr. Jigar P. Raval for the appellants-plaintiffs submitted that judgement and order dated 22.03.2018 passed by the learned Court in Regular Civil Suit no. 1197 of 2017, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the suit preferred by the appellants-plaintiffs while allowing the application filed by the original defendant no. 3 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, is a non-speaking order. It was submitted that the learned trial Court has held that the suit is barred by the provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. However, no reasons or grounds are provided by the learned Trial Court for arriving at such decision.
Page 11 of 49 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:34:08 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1485/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined
17. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Dave for the appellants-plaintiffs submitted that the defendants have in collusion with each other defrauded the plaintiffs and after concealing relevant facts have got registered the sale deed in 2010 and had the entries entered in the revenue record after a considerably long time for which no notice was served up on the plaintiffs. However, upon publication of public notice for title clearance by the defendants in 2017, the plaintiffs came to know about the sale deed executed in the year 2010. It was therefore submitted that, the limitation period starts only upon the knowledge of publication of notice in 2017 and not from date of registration of agreement to sale in 1984. It was therefore, submitted that the learned trial court has committed an error in rejecting the plaint under order VII Rule 11 of the Code. Page 12 of 49 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:34:08 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1485/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined
18. It was submitted that no specific time to perform the agreement was agreed between the parties as the land was an agricultural land and when the agreement to sale was signed in 1984, NA Certificate was required in order to get the registered sale deed and to use the suit land for non-agricultural purpose. It was submitted that the predecessor of defendants signed the General Power of Attorney in favour of the plaintiffs on 14.05.1984 and also supplementary agreement for possession was executed on the same day in favour of the plaintiffs and as such, the plaintiffs paid the 80% amount of sale consideration as agreed and got peaceful and actual possession by the supplementary agreement and also got receipt thereof. It was further submitted that the power of attorney and other documents of possession, etc. are supported with affidavit signed by late Bhalabhai Dahyabhai in favour of the Page 13 of 49 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:34:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1485/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined plaintiffs, whereby the plaintiffs were absolute owner as per the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and the defendants have neither right to possession nor right to transfer or assign the suit land in any manner.
19. It was submitted that since 1984 i.e. since registration of Agreement to Sale, the appellants-plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land and therefore, did not prefer any litigation for execution of sale deed as the respondents-defendants continued to give oral assurances to the plaintiffs-appellants that the sale deed would be executed soon on receipt of NA order.
20. It was submitted that, the rights of the plaintiffs-appellants or the reliefs as claimed in the prayers of the plaint with regards to declaration, possession, ownership Page 14 of 49 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:34:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1485/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined etc. are nowhere related to any of the clauses of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code and the case of the plaintiffs-appellants could not have been rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code without going into the merits of the matter and without appreciating evidence which are subject of trial and cannot be decided at the stage of considering application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code.
21. It was submitted that section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 would not bar the suit as section 34 would only apply when the plaintiffs-appellants would have claimed specific performance of agreement to sale, whereas in the facts of the case, section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 would be applicable as the plaintiffs- appellants were already in possession of the suit land since 1984. It was submitted that, Page 15 of 49 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:34:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1485/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined as per section 53A, where any person contracts to transfer for consideration any immoveable property by writing signed by him or on his behalf from which the terms necessary to constitute the transfer can be ascertained with reasonable certainty, and the transferee has in part performance of the contract, taken possession of the property or any part thereof, or the transferee, being already in possession, continues in possession in part performance of the contract and has done some act in furtherance of the contract, and the transferee has performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract, or, where there is an instrument of transfer, but the transfer has not been completed in the manner prescribed by the law for the time being in force, the transferor or any person claiming under him shall be debarred from enforcing against the transferee and persons claiming under him any Page 16 of 49 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:34:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1485/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined right in respect of the property of which the transferee has taken or continued in possession, other than a right expressly provided by the terms of the contract. Therefore, the appellants-plaintiffs are entitled to have decree for ownership as prayed in the plaint.
22. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Dave for the appellants-plaintiffs in support of his submissions placed reliance on the judgement in case of Daliben Valjibhai and Others Versus Prajapati Kodarbhai Kachrabhai and Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4105, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while rejecting the plaint, when the question arises whether the plaintiffs had the knowledge of the execution of the sale deed, it could not be expected that the plaintiffs must have given meticulous details of the fraud perpetuated in the plaint itself. Page 17 of 49 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:34:08 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1485/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined However, the Hon'ble Court further held in the facts of the said case that the findings of the High Court are primarily factual and the High Court while rejecting the plaint, seems to have got carried away by the fact that the suit was filed by the plaintiff 13 years after the execution of the sale deed. It was further held that there was no justification for the High Court in allowing the application under Order VII Rule 11, on issues that were not evident from the averments in the plaint itself. The High Court was also not justified in holding that the limitation period commences from the date of registration of the agreement of sale and the judgment of the High Court was held to be unsustainable. The Hon'ble Supreme court also considered the decision in case of P.V. Guru Raj Reddy v. P. Neeradha Reddy reported in (2015) 8 SCC 331 wherein, Hon'ble Apex court held that it is only if the averments in the Page 18 of 49 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:34:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1485/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined plaint ex facie do not disclose a cause of action or on a reading thereof, the suit appears to be barred under any law, the plaint can be rejected and in all other situations, the claims will have to be adjudicated during the course of the trial. It was further held that the claim of the plaintiffs with regard to the knowledge of the essential facts giving rise to the cause of action as pleaded in the plaint will have to be accepted as correct at the stage of consideration of the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code,and the stand of the defendants in the written statement would be altogether irrelevant.
23. It was submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Daliben Valjibhai and Others (supra) also dealt with the decision in case of Chhotanben v. Kirtibhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar reported in (2018) 6 SCC 422 wherein Page 19 of 49 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:34:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1485/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined Hon'ble Apex Court held that when the appellants-plaintiffs have asserted that the suit was filed immediately after getting knowledge about the fraudulent sale deed executed by the defendants, by keeping them in the dark about such execution, the issue regarding the suit being barred by limitation in the facts of the case, is a triable issue and for which reason the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold in exercise of the power under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code.
24. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Urvashiben & Anr. V/S. Krishnakant Manuprasad Trivedi reported in (2019) 13 SCC 372.
25. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Apex Court in case of Sucha Singh Sodhi (D) thr. L.Rs. Vs. Baldev Raj Walia and Ors. reported in AIR 2018 SC 2241, to submit that Page 20 of 49 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:34:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1485/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined as per Order II Rule 2 of the Code, every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the Plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action, but a Plaintiff may relinquish any portion of his claim in order to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of any Court. It was therefore, submitted in the facts of the present case that the plaintiffs have relinquished his claim with regards to the specific performance of agreement to sale, which as per learned Senior Advocate Mr. Dave can be made in a subsequent suit or even in the present suit by way of an amendment. It was therefore, prayed that the impugned Judgement and orders are liable to be set aside and trial court may continue with the trial. Submissions of the Respondents:
26. learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mehul Suresh Shah with learned advocate Mr. Vishal C. Page 21 of 49 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:34:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1485/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined Mehta for the respondents-defendants submitted that the suit filed by appellants- plaintiffs was filed after 33 years from the execution of registered Agreement to sale dated 14.05.1984 and therefore, the suit is suffering from limitation and is hopelessly time barred. It was submitted that nothing is placed on record by the appellants-plaintiffs to show reasonable grounds for delay from 1984 till 2017 when civil suit was filed. It was submitted that the averments made in the plaint are absolutely vague with regards to what happened after 1984 till 2017 as no documents or prima facie evidences are produced on record or no specific averments of dates have been mentioned by the plaintiffs as to what notices were issued or follow-ups have been made by the plaintiffs after agreement to sale in 1984 or as to when the defendants have given oral assurances. It was further submitted that if it is assumed Page 22 of 49 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:34:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1485/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined that appellants-plaintiffs made regular requests to the defendants for execution of sale deed, it becomes obvious that the appellants were in knowledge of the alleged breach of agreement to sale and therefore, the period of limitation would start from the date when the appellants first came to know about the said alleged breach or when the first request for execution sale deed was made and therefore as per section 9 of the Limitation Act, 1963 limitation period that has once begun to run, cannot stop due to subsequent disability or inability and legal actions cannot be delayed indefinitely due to obstacles.
27. It was submitted that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action as the only basis for declaration of title rights as prayed by the appellants-plaintiffs in the plaint is agreement to sale of 1984 coupled Page 23 of 49 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:34:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1485/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined with the claim of having continuous possession of the suit land, however, it is an accepted principle that merely being party to agreement to sale would not confer ownership rights.
28. It was further submitted that the plaintiffs have disputed the registered sale deed of the defendants and have asked for declaration and injunction. However, no specific performance of agreement to sale is prayed for the by the plaintiffs in the plaint. It was submitted that section 34 of the Specific Relief Act,1963 provides for discretion of the Court as to declaration of status or right of any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, who may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the Court may in its discretion make therein a Page 24 of 49 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:34:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1485/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiffs need not in such suit ask for any further relief. However, proviso to section 34 provides that no Court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiffs, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so. Therefore, as per Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act,1963 in the present case as the plaintiffs, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, has omitted to do so, the suit was rightly dismissed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of Code.
29. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Vasantha (Dead) Thr. LR. V/s. Rajalakshmi @ Rajam thr. LRs in Civil Appeal No. 3854 of 2014 wherein it is held that the purpose behind the inclusion of the proviso to section 34 was to prevent multiplicity of the proceedings. It was Page 25 of 49 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:34:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1485/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined further expounded that a mere declaratory decree remains non-executable in most cases and if suit does not pray for specific performance/consequential relief, the suit cannot be maintainable and therefore being barred by law liable to be dismissed.
30. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Umadevi v/s. Anand Kumar reported in 2025 (0) AIJEL SC 75007, wherein order passed by the Trial court rejecting plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code was upheld by the Apex Court when no cause of action for filing suit was disclosed by the plaintiffs in the plaint as the plaintiffs failed to address the crucial question of when they became aware of the registered sale deeds of suit property and whether if they had prior knowledge of the sale deeds, they failed to specify the exact date of such knowledge.
Page 26 of 49 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:34:08 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1485/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined
31. Reliance was also placed upon the decision of Apex Court in case of Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust & Ors. v. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle & Anr. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3844 to substantiate the contention that the suit was barred by limitation.
32. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shah further contended that, as held by Apex Court in case of Khatri Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India reported in (2011) 9 SCC 12, the use of the word 'first' between the words 'sue' and 'accrues' in Article 58 of the Limitation Act,163 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 accrue. That is, if there are successive violations of the right, it would not give rise to a fresh Page 27 of 49 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:34:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1485/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined cause 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. It was therefore, submitted that in the facts of the case, first right to sue would arise after completion to three years in 1987 from the dated of agreement to sale dated 14.05.1984.
33. Reliance was also placed upon the decision of Apex Court in case of Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji (Deceased) Through L.R.S Versus Maniben Jagmalbhai (Deceased) Through LRS reported in 2022 (0) AIJEL-SC 68485 wherein it was held that when the main reliefs sought by the plaintiffs in the suit were cancellation of the sale deed and declaration, the prayer of permanent injunction restraining defendant No.1 from disturbing possession can be said to be a consequential relief. Therefore, the title to Page 28 of 49 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:34:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1485/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined the property was the basis of the relief of possession, if that be so, the relief for permanent injunction can be said to be a consequential relief and not a substantive relief. Therefore, once the plaintiffs have failed to get any substantive relief of cancellation of the sale deed and failed to get any declaratory relief, relief of injunction can be said to be a consequential relief and therefore, the prayer for permanent injunction must fail and the plaintiffs cannot be said to be in lawful possession of the suit land, i.e. the possession of the plaintiffs would be "not legal or authorised by the law", the plaintiffs would not be entitled to any relief of permanent injunction. Analysis:
34. Heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the plaint and the Page 29 of 49 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:34:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1485/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined documents annexed with the plaint. On perusal of the plaint, following points for determination are formulated for consideration:
1) Whether the learned trial Judge has erred in law in allowing the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code without assigning any reason for holding that the suit is barred by the provisions of section 34 of the Specific Relief Act,1963 and section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948?
2) Whether the plaintiffs can be said to have knowledge only on publication of the public notice by the defendants in the year 2017 about the sale deed executed in the year 2010 and limitation period would start only on publication of notice in 2017?
Page 30 of 49 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:34:08 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1485/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined
3) Whether the plaintiffs prove that full amount as agreed was paid and peaceful actual possession by the supplementary possession agreement was handed over along with General Power of Attorney dated 14.05.1984 as per the affidavit of late Bhalabhai Dahyabhai in favour of the plaintiffs?
4) Whether the provisions of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is applicable in facts of the case and not section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963?
5) Whether agreement to sale is barred by section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 as no permission was obtained for the purchase of agricultural land by the plaintiffs who are non agriculturists?
6) Whether there is any cause of action to Page 31 of 49 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:34:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1485/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined file a suit in the year 2017 for declaration and permanent injunction without prayer for specific performance of the agreement to sale dated 14.05.1984?
7) Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to raise the claim of specific performance of agreement to sale by way of amendment or not?
35. Considering the facts of the case which are not in dispute between the parties, the suit was filed after more than 33 years from the execution of the agreement to sale dated 14.05.1984. Therefore, prima facie the suit is barred by law of limitation being time barred.
36. The contention raised on behalf of the appellants-plaintiffs is that the claim of the plaintiffs for specific performance of the agreement to sale can be relinquished as Page 32 of 49 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:34:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1485/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined the plaintiffs have also invoked the provisions of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as there is part performance of the contract of agreement to sale and supplementary agreement for possession entered into in the year 1984 and only sale deed was to be executed. However, the averments made in the plaint in this respect are absolutely vague as nothing is disclosed as to what happened between 1984 and 2017 and no documents are also placed on record with the plaint in that regard.
37. There are no specific averments of any date mentioned by the plaintiffs as to what follow up actions had been taken after execution of the agreement to sale in the year 1984.
38. On perusal of the documents placed along with the plaint, it also emerges that the Page 33 of 49 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:34:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1485/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined averments made in the plaint regarding the possession of the plaintiffs is also not corroborated by any document.
39. It also appears that the averments regarding oral assurance given by the defendants are also only in the nature of clever drafting as even if it is assumed that the appellants-plaintiffs had made regular requests to the defendants for execution of the sale deed, it becomes obvious that the appellants-plaintiffs were in knowledge of alleged breach of agreement to sale in the year 2010 and therefore, the period of limitation would start when the plaintiffs first came to know about the alleged breach when they requested for execution of agreement to sale.
40. On perusal of cause of action narrated in the plaint, same does not disclose any Page 34 of 49 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:34:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1485/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined cause as only basis for declaration of ownership rights as prayed by the plaintiffs in the plaint is agreement to sale of 1984 coupled with the assertion of having been in continuous possession of the suit land. However, it is a trite law that merely being party to the agreement to sale would not confer ownership rights upon the plaintiffs.
41. Provisions of section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides for discretion of the Court as to declaration of status or right of any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, who may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such character or right. However, there is no prayer for specific performance of the agreement to sale by the plaintiffs in the plaint. In absence of such prayer, as per proviso to section 34, no Page 35 of 49 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:34:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1485/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined Court shall make any such declaration of title of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs have failed to seek declaration of title and in the facts of the case the plaintiffs have failed to seek further relief except mere declaration of title and therefore, the suit was rightly dismissed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code by the trial Court.
42. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Vasantha (Dead) Thr. LR. V/s. Rajalakshmi @ Rajam thr. LRs (supra), has held that the purpose behind the inclusion of the proviso to section 34 was to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and mere declaratory decree remains non-executable in most cases if no prayer is made for specific performance or consequential relief and such suit is not maintainable being barred by law.
43. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Page 36 of 49 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:34:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1485/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined Umadevi v/s. Anand Kumar(supra), after considering the decision in case of Suraj Lamp Industries Pvt. Ltd v. State of Haryana and another reported in (2012) 1 SCC 656 and decision in case of Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust and ors. v. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle & Anr. reported in 2024 0 SCC OnLine SC 3844 and decision in case of Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal reported in (2017) 13 SCC 174 as well as decision in case of Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali reported in (2020) 7 SCC 366, has held that considering the ratios of such decisions when the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was a meaningless litigation as it did not disclose a proper cause of action and the suit would be barred by limitation.
44. In the facts of the case also, no cause Page 37 of 49 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:34:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1485/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined of action for filing the suit is disclosed by the plaintiffs as the plaintiffs have failed to address the crucial question as to when they became aware of the registered sale deed executed in the year 2010 of the suit land and whether they had prior knowledge of the sale deeds as the exact date of such knowledge is not disclosed and only reliance is placed on public notice issued in the year 2017 to bring the suit within the limitation.
45. The Hon'be Apex Court in case of Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust & Ors. v. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle & Anr.(supra) in facts of the said case has held that the reliefs sought in the suit were barred by limitation as per Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and upon meaningful reading of the plaint, it was evident that the suit was hopelessly barred by limitation. It was Page 38 of 49 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:34:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1485/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined clarified by the Hon'ble Apex Court that Article 58 provides a three year limitation period from when right to sue first accrues whereas Article 59 similarly prescribes three years for cancellation or setting aside an instrument. It was also held that as per section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 the registered documents provide constructive notice and therefore, in the facts of the present case, the sale deed executed in the year 2010 has remained unchallenged by the plaintiffs and therefore, action of challenging the same in the year 2017 has become untenable due to lack of timely action and failure to assert right within the prescribed period.
46. The Hon'be Apex Court in case of Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji (Deceased) Through L.R.S Versus Maniben Jagmalbhai (Deceased) Through LRS(supra) has held as under: Page 39 of 49 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:34:08 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1485/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined "11. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has not properly appreciated the distinction between a substantive relief and a consequential relief. The High Court has observed that in the instant case the relief of permanent injunction can be said to be a substantive relief, which is clearly an erroneous view. It is to be noted that the main reliefs sought by the plaintiff in the suit were cancellation of the sale deed and declaration and the prayer of permanent injunction restraining defendant No.1 from disturbing her possession can be said to be a consequential relief. Therefore, the title to the property was the basis of the relief of possession. If that be so, in the present case, the relief for permanent injunction can be said to be a consequential relief and not a substantive relief as observed and held by the High Court. Therefore, once the plaintiff has failed to get any substantive relief of cancellation of the sale deed and failed to get any declaratory relief, and as observed hereinabove, relief of injunction can be said to be a consequential relief.
Therefore, the prayer for permanent injunction must fail. In the instant case as the plaintiff cannot be said to be in lawful possession of the suit land, i.e., the possession of the plaintiff is "not legal or authorised by the law", the plaintiff shall not be entitled to any permanent injunction."
47. Applying the above ratio in facts of the present case, title to the suit land was made the basis of the relief of possession and if that be so, in facts of the case, Page 40 of 49 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:34:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1485/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined relief for permanent injunction can be said to be consequential relief and not a substantive relief. Therefore, prayers made in the plaint cannot be granted regarding permanent injunction as the main relief sought by the plaintiffs in the suit were for cancellation of the sale deed and declaration of title and the title of ownership of the plaintiffs qua the suit land would depend upon the cancellation of the sale deed executed in favour of the defendant no.3 and therefore, the plaintiffs cannot be said to be in lawful possession of the suit land as the possession of the plaintiffs would not be legal or authorised by law.
48. The provision of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 would not be applicable in the facts of the case as it appears from the record that the plaintiffs have sought protection of the possession of Page 41 of 49 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:34:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1485/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined the suit land on the ground that possession was handed over pursuant to the supplementary agreement dated 14.05.1984 and therefore, their continued possession deserves protection. However, section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 does not confer ownership or any enforceable title but only protects the possession of a transferee who has acted in part performance of the contract.
49. It is by now well settled that the provision of section 53A operates only as a shield and not as a sword which can be used as a defense to resist dispossession but cannot be invoked as a basis to assert ownership or to seek affirmative relief such as specific performance or declaration of title. The plaintiffs, therefore, cannot rely upon section 53A in support of cause of action for enforcement of any contractual Page 42 of 49 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:34:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1485/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined right as per the settled legal position. Reliance placed on behalf of plaintiffs on section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to sustain the claim or protect the possession is legally untenable once the primary claim for specific performance is barred by limitation, therefore, plea for protection of possession under section 53A would not be available.
50. Reliance placed by the learned advocate for the plaintiffs on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Daliben Valjibhai and Others Versus Prajapati Kodarbhai Kachrabhai and Another (supra) would be of no help in view of the findings of fact recorded by the trial Court coupled with the averments made in the plaint and the documents placed on record in support of such averments, more particularly in absence of date of actual knowledge of the execution of the sale deed Page 43 of 49 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:34:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1485/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined in 2010 not being disclosed by the plaintiffs and only averments are made in respect of acquiring the date of knowledge on publication of notice in the year 2017 which is nothing but clever drafting of the plaint.
51. In the present case, reading the plaint as a whole and the proceedings on the basis of averments made therein as correct, the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that suit is barred by limitation considering the averments made in the plaint which ex-facie do not disclose a cause of action and reading thereof, the suit appears to be barred under law of limitation.
52. Reliance placed on decision in case of Urvashiben & Anr. V/S. Krishnakant Manuprasad Trivedi(supra) is also not applicable in facts of the case as Hon'ble Apex Court has held that for deciding whether the plaint Page 44 of 49 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:34:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1485/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined deserves to be rejected only averments stated in the plaint have to be considered. Referring to Article 54 of the Limitation Act,1963, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that when the date is fixed for performance, limitation is three years from such date. If no such date is fixed, the period of three years is to be computed from the date when the plaintiff has notice of refusal. In the facts of the present case merely because the plaintiffs have made averments that he came to know about execution of the sale deed of 2010 in the year 2017 in the plaint from the date of publishing the public notice would not be applicable as it is nothing but a clever drafting in view of the averments made in the agreement for sale executed on 14.05.1984 wherein it is stipulated that it is for the plaintiffs to obtain the requisite NA permission for transfer of land. Page 45 of 49 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:34:08 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1485/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined
53. It is also pertinent to note that supplementary agreement for possession was executed on 09.05.1984 whereas agreement for sale was executed on 14.05.1984 and thereafter no averments are made by the plaintiffs of any efforts being made for execution of the sale deed for more than three decades.
54. Similarly, decision in case of Sucha Singh Sodhi (D) thr. L.Rs. Vs. Baldev Raj Walia and Ors.(supra) would also be not applicable in the facts of the present case as the issue of applicability of Order II Rule 2 of the Code regarding the claim made by the plaintiffs and right of plaintiffs to relinquish any portion of the claim to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of the Court would not be applicable in absence of the averments made in the plaint bringing the Page 46 of 49 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:34:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1485/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined suit within the period of limitation.
55. The contention raised on behalf of the plaintiffs that suit can be filed subject to obtaining permission under section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 is not required to be considered at this stage in view of the fact that the suit is barred by limitation.
Conclusion:
56. Having considered the pleadings, documents and reliefs sought in the plaint, we are of the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any error as no cause of action has been stated by the plaintiffs as the suit is based on agreement to sale dated 14.05.1984 whereas the suit is filed in the year 2017, therefore, the suit is time-barred by limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act as the right to seek specific Page 47 of 49 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:34:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1485/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined performance accrued in the year 1984 when the agreement was executed or at least in 2013 as the sale deed in favour of the defendant was executed in the year 2010.
57. As the sale deed executed in 2010 was a registered public document, the plaintiffs are deemed to have had the constructive notice of the execution of such sale deed, hence the trial Court has rightly not considered the plea of lack of knowledge or date of knowledge in the year 2017 when the public notice for title clearance was issued.
58. The cause of action as pleaded is in the nature of clever drafting being artificial and illusionary inasmuch as vague averments are made and allowing such suit to proceed would amount to permitting the abuse of the judicial process. The trial Court has Page 48 of 49 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:34:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1485/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined therefore, rightly rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost. Civil Application also stands disposed of accordingly.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) (L. S. PIRZADA, J) RAGHUNATH R NAIR Page 49 of 49 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:34:08 IST 2026