The division judge bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari of the apex court in the case of C.S. Ramaswamy V. V.K. Senthil & Ors held that the mere statement in the plaint that a fraud has been played is not enough and the allegations of fraud must be specifically averred in the plaint, otherwise merely by using the word “fraud”, the plaintiffs would try to get the suits within the limitation, which otherwise may be barred by limitation.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that the original plaintiff filed the respective suits before the trial court for the cancellation of the sale deed and to declare the plaintiffs as the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. Further, the defendant filed the application before the trial court to reject the respective plaints in the exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC mainly on the ground that the respective suits were clearly barred by the law of limitation. However, the learned trial court and the high court rejected the application filed by the original defendant under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended that both the trial court and the high court have committed the error in rejecting the application field under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC. It is further submitted that the sale deed is the registered sale deed and the suit is filed after a span of more than 10 years and is barred by the law of limitations. It is vehemently submitted that merely by making some vague averments with respect to fraud, the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to bring the suits within the period of limitation.
The learned counsel further relied upon the judgment titled Raghwendra Sharan Singh Vs. Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead) by Legal Representatives, (2020) 16 SCC 601.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents held that they got to know that the sale deeds are the result of fraud and sham and from the date of knowledge in the year 2015 thereafter immediately the respective suits were filed, it cannot be said that the respective suits are barred by limitation. It was further submitted that the trial court and the high court have committed no error in rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC. It is submitted that considering Section 17 of the Limitation Act, the period of limitation shall begin to run only from the date of discovery of such fraud.
The learned counsel also relied upon the judgments titled Sopan Sukhdeo Sable & Ors. Vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner & Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 137; Srihari Hanumandas Totala Vs. Hemant Vithal Kamat & Ors., (2021) 9 SCC 99; Ram Prakash Gupta Vs. Rajiv Kumar Gupta & Ors., (2007) 10 SCC 59, Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society Vs. Ponniamman Educational Trust, (2012) 8 SCC 706, and Salim D. Agboatwala & Ors. Vs. Shamalji Oddhavji Thakkar & Ors., 2021 SCC Online SC 735.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The apex court relied upon the judgment titled T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467, Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society v. Ponniamman Educational Trust, (2012) 8 SCC 706, ABC Laminart (P) Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies (1989) 2 SCC 163, Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Charity Commr., (2004) 3 SCC 137, Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal, (2017) 13 SCC 174, and Ram Singh v. Gram Panchayat Mehal Kalan, (1986) 4 SCC 364.
The hon’ble apex court held that applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions on exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to the facts of the case on hand and the averments in the plaints, the court is of the opinion that both the Courts below have materially erred in not rejecting the plaints in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. The respective suits have been filed after a period of 10 years from the date of execution of the registered sale deeds. It is to be noted that one suit was filed by the minor, which was filed in the year 2006, in which some of the plaintiffs herein were also party to the said suit, and in the said suit, there was a specific reference to the Sale Deed and the said suit came to be dismissed in the year 2014 and immediately thereafter the present suits have been filed. Thus, from the averments in the plaint and the bundle of facts stated in the plaint, we are of the opinion that by clever drafting, the plaintiffs have tried to bring the suits within the period of limitation, which otherwise is barred by limitation. Therefore, considering the decisions of this Court in the case of T. Arivandandam (supra) and other decisions of Raghwendra Sharan Singh (supra), and as the respective suits are barred by the law of limitation, the respective plaints are required to be rejected in the exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
The order passed by the high court and the trial court in not rejecting the plaint is hereby quashed and set aside.
CASE NAME- C.S. Ramaswamy V. V.K. Senthil & Ors
CITATION- CIVIL APPEAL NO. 500 OF 2022
CORUM- Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari
DATE- 30.09.22
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
