The Supreme Court firmly stated that any clever drafting or legal manoeuvring could not circumvent the provisions of the Limitation Act in lawsuits. In accordance with Order VII Rule XI of the CPC, the court dismissed the plaint on the grounds of being vexatious, illusory, and barred by limitation.
Brief Facts of the Case:
The appellants were dissatisfied with the High Court's decision in 2021, which upheld the Trial Court's decision to dismiss their request under Order VII Rule XI of the CPC. As a result, the appellant filed an appeal.
Brief Background:
The case pertains to a complex dispute over the ownership of a piece of land in Andhra Pradesh divided among Nasyam Jamal Saheb's five children, with a registered deed partitioning 4 acres and 16 cents in March 1953. The appellants subsequently purchased part of this land, only to be sued by the descendants of another daughter of Jamal Saheb, who sought partition and separate possession of their share in the sold property. The appellants resolved the matter by paying the plaintiffs Rs. 14,00,000/- in a Lok Adalat. Respondents Nos. 1 to 8 then filed a lawsuit in 2014, seeking to establish their title to the property, revoke several registered deeds, and obtain a permanent injunction preventing the appellants from dispossessing them.
Contentions of the Appellants (Defendants in the Original Suit):
The appellants contended that the Trial Court and the High Court had committed a grave error in not permitting the application under Order VII Rule XI of the CPC and dismissing the plaint. They asserted that the suit was manifestly time-barred and thus ought to have been rejected. The plaintiffs had relied on a supposed error in the partition deed. Still, they had deliberately refrained from seeking rectification of the same to avoid running afoul of the law of limitation. The appellants relied on the authoritative precedent of T. Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal [(1977) 4 SCC 467] urged the Court to dismiss the vexatious and baseless plaint.
Furthermore, they argued that if the partition deed were to be contested. The appellants posited that the present suit was frivolous and vexatious since it sought to disrupt the title and possession of various family members and third parties such as themselves. They relied on the Court's ruling in Raj Narain Sarin Vs. Laxmi Devi and Ors. [(2002) 10 SCC 501]. The order of the High Court and that of the Trial Court rejecting the application under Order VII Rule XI are quashed and set aside. The plaint be dismissed since it was barred by limitation and constituted a vexatious and illusory cause of action.
Contentions of the Respondent (Plaintiffs in the Original Suit):
The respondents strongly opposed the appeal, contending that both the Trial Court and High Court were justified in rejecting the application under Order VII Rule XI of the CPC and not dismissing the plaint. They asserted that the only discrepancy was an error in the survey number mentioned in the partition deed and that the boundary should precede any such discrepancy in the document. In support of their argument, they cited relevant case law, including The Palestine Kupat Am Bank Co-operative Society Ltd. vs the Government of Palestine and Ors. AIR (35) 1948 Privy Council 207, Subhaga and Ors. vs Shobha and Ors. (2006) 5 SCC 466, and Nusli Neville Wadia vs Ivory Properties and Ors. (2020) 6 SCC 557. The respondents further emphasized that while considering the application under Order VII Rule XI, only the averments made in the plaint were significant, and any allegations made in the written statement could not be considered. Ultimately, the respondents prayed for the dismissal of the appeal.
The decision of the Court:
Upon scrutiny of the relevant provisions, the Apex Court noted that the plaintiffs had cleverly attempted to circumvent the provision of limitation, which was deemed to be a misuse of the Court and the law. Upon careful consideration of the arguments presented, the Court determined that the plaintiff's claim should have been dismissed under Order VII Rule XI of the CPC due to its vexatious, illusory, and time-barred nature. The Court emphasized that the suit had an illusory cause of action and was barred by limitation.
Case Title: Ramisetty Venkatanna & Anr v Nasyam Jamal Saheb & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal no 2717 of 2023
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 415 SC
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.R Shah and Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.T Ravikumar
Advocates for Petitioner: Mr. Anand Nuli
Advocates for Respondent: Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
