On 30th September 2022, the Supreme Court in a division bench comprising of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari observed that a vague averment and a mere use of the word “Fraud” cannot Invoke Section 17 of the Limitation Act. (C.S. Ramaswamy v. V.K. Senthil & Ors. with C.S. Ramaswamy v. Nanjammal & Ors. with C.S. Ramaswamy v. Shanmugam & Ors. with C.S. Ramaswamy v. Karupannan & Ors. with C.S. Ramaswamy v. K. Palaniappan & Ors. with C.S. Ramaswamy v. N. Kalikrishnan & Ors. and C.S. Ramaswamy v. Nanjammal & Ors.)
Facts of the case:
The original Plaintiff, Respondents herein, filed suits before the Trial Court for cancellation of the sale deed executed by them in favour of the appellant as null and void and also to declare that plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property and consequently restrain the defendant from alienating the suit schedule property. As a result, the appellant, filed applications before the Trial Court to reject the respective plaints in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC on the ground that the suits were clearly barred by the law of limitation. But the plaintiffs submitted that the Sale Deeds were obtained by fraudulent misrepresentation i.e., by misrepresenting the character of the document as if it was a Joint Development Project. According to Plaintiffs, they came to know about the same only in April, 2015, immediately after which they filled the suit. Trial Court dismissed the applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC by observing that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts and therefore, the respective prayers are not required to be rejected at this stage in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the C.P.C. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant, appellant herein, filed a revision petition before the High court which was again dismissed. Hence the present appeal.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The counsel for the appellant submitted that, “there are vague averments with respect to the date of knowledge of the alleged fraud and thesuits have been filed after a period of 10 years from the date of execution, which is a fit case to exercise the powers under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. Moreover, merely stating that the registered sale deeds were executed by playing the fraud is not sufficient to file the suits after a period of 10 years”. He further submitted that, with respect to the sale deeds, earlier a suit was filed by the minor to which some of the original plaintiffs were also parties and the said suits came to be dismissed in the year 2014. It was submitted that immediately thereafter the present suits were filed in the year 2015/2016. It is submitted that therefore, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs were not having the knowledge of the nature and/or the contents of the sale deeds. While replying on the case, Raghwendra Sharan Singh Vs. Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead) by Legal Representatives, he played to allow the present revision petitions.
Contentions of the respondent:
The counsel for respondents submitted that, “the sale deeds are the result of fraud and from the date of knowledge in the year 2015 the suits were filed immediately”. Moreover, while relying on the cases, Sopan Sukhdeo Sable & Ors. Vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner & Ors., and Srihari Hanumandas Totala Vs. Hemant Vithal Kamat & Ors., he said that, considering and/or deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only the averments and allegations in the plaint are required to be considered. Moreover, while referring to the case, Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society Vs. Ponniamman Educational Trust, he said, on considering the necessary averments in the plaint disclosing the cause of action and considering the averments and allegations in the entire plaint, it cannot be said that the suits are barred by limitation. He further 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 and the reliance was placed on the case, Salim D. Agboatwala & Ors. Vs. Shamalji Oddhavji Thakkar & Ors.
Observations and judgement of the Court:
The Hon’ble court observed that even after considering the averments and allegations in the plaints, it can be seen that the cause of action for the suit arose on 19.09.2005, the date on which the plaintiffs executed the sale deed in favour of the defendant. Even the averments and allegations with respect to knowledge of the plaintiffs averred in paragraph 19 can be said to be too vague. Nothing has been mentioned on which date and how the plaintiffs had the knowledge that the document was obtained by fraud. It is averred that the alleged fraudulent sale came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs only when the plaintiffs visited the suit property. Nothing has been mentioned when the plaintiffs visited the suit property. It is not understandable how on visiting the suit property, the plaintiffs could have known the same.
Moreover, mere stating 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. 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 dated 19.09.2005 and the said suit came to be dismissed in the year 2014 and immediately thereafter the present suits have been filed.
The present appeal succeeded, quashing and setting aside the judgement of the HC and the respective plaints were rejected on the ground that the same were barred by limitation.
Case: C.S. Ramaswamy v. V.K. Senthil & Ors. with C.S. Ramaswamy v. Nanjammal & Ors. with C.S. Ramaswamy v. Shanmugam & Ors. with C.S. Ramaswamy v. Karupannan & Ors. with C.S. Ramaswamy v. K. Palaniappan & Ors. with C.S. Ramaswamy v. N. Kalikrishnan & Ors. and C.S. Ramaswamy v. Nanjammal & Ors.
Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 500 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 504 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 505 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 506 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 502 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 501 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 503 OF 2022.
Bench: Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari
Date: SEPTEMBER 30, 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
