Gujarat High Court
Lrs Of Decd Thakor Punjaji Manaji Lilaji vs Lrs Of Decd Thakor Mangaji Nathaji on 15 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/399/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 399 of 2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2024
In R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 399 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
LRS OF DECD THAKOR PUNJAJI MANAJI LILAJI & ORS.
Versus
LRS OF DECD THAKOR MANGAJI NATHAJI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR TEJAS P SATTA(3149) for the Appellant(s) No.
1,1.1,2,2.1,2.2,2.3,2.4,3,4,5
MR. MANAN S DOSHI(9795) for the Respondent(s) No. 10,11,7,8,9
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Date : 15/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC', for short) challenging
the judgment and decree dated 19.06.2024, passed in Regular Civil
Appeal No.1 of 2024, by Additional District Judge, Kalol,
Gandhinagar, whereby the appellate Court has confirmed the
judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.102 of 2023
dated 04.12.2023.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/399/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as their
original status referred to in the suit.
FACTS :
3.1 The plaintiff filed Civil Suit No.102 of 2023 claiming right in
the suit property on the ground that a fraud has been committed by
the defendants with respect to the lands mentioned in the prayer
clause of the plaint ('suit property', for short). In the plaint, plaintiff
challenged the sale-deed executed, dated 21.04.2006 and 09.04.2007
and also claimed successory right in the suit property. The injunction
has also been sought for with respect to the suit property.
3.2 The defendant appeared in the said suit and filed application
vide Exh.17 under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC on the ground that
plaintiffs are challenging the sale-deed of the year 2006 and 2007
and that plaintiff's father was aware of the said transaction as the
plaintiff's father having already filed civil suit challenging the said
sale-deeds in the year 2010.
3.3 The trial Court, after taking into consideration the plaint and
the documents annexed with the plaint, rejected the suit under the
provisions of Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the CPC on the ground that
the plaintiff could not have filed suit in the year 2023 and, therefore,
the suit is barred by law.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/399/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
3.4 Against the said order passed by the trial Court, the plaintiff
filed Regular Civil Appeal No.1 of 2024 and after taking into
consideration the plaint and documents annexed with the plaint and
also the judgment passed by the trial Court, the first appellate Court
dismissed Regular Civil Appeal and hence the present Second
Appeal by the plaintiff.
SUBMISSION OF PLAINTIFF - APPELLANT :
4.1 Learned advocate for the plaintiff has mainly argued that trial
Court and appellate Court have not taken into consideration the fact
of fraud being committed while executing sale-deed dated
21.04.2006 and 09.04.2007. It has been argued by learned advocate
for the plaintiff that if plaint is perused, the plaintiff has
categorically stated that defendant nos.1 to 6 are family members of
plaintiff and the suit property is ancestral property of plaintiffs and
defendant nos.1 to 6 and defendant nos.1 to 6 could not have sold
suit property on 12.04.2006 to defendant no.8 vide sale-deed dated
12.04.2006, vide Entry No.1934. It has been argued that though in
the said sale-deed plaintiffs are stated to be confirming party, their
consent and signatures were not taken in the said sale-deed and
thereby the fraud has been committed on the plaintiffs.
4.2 Moreover, it has also been stated in the plaint that on
09.04.2007, defendant no.7 i.e. Power of Attorney holder of
defendant nos.1 to 6 has sold suit property and that fraud has been
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/399/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
committed on the plaintiffs and no power of attorney has been
executed by the plaintiffs. In view of the said fact, it is the case of
plaintiff that it is only on 20.02.2023 that plaintiff came to know
about execution of sale-deed when they got records from the revenue
department and, therefore, suit has been filed.
SUBMISSION OF DEFENDANT - RESPONDENTS:
5.1 Learned advocate for the defendant has mainly argued that, if
the facts of the present case are perused, it can be clearly established
that present suit is filed challenging two sale-deed dated 12.04.2006
and 09.04.2007 and both being registered documents, the same is
deemed knowledge and, therefore, in view of the said fact suit
having been filed in the year 2023, challenging the sale deed dated
12.04.2006 and 09.04.2007, the said suit is barred on the ground of
limitation.
5.2 Moreover, learned advocate for the plaintiff has also argued
that before filing present suit, father of the plaintiff viz. Thakor
Punjaji Manaji and Thakor Chanduben Manaji had filed Special
Civil Suit No.178 of 2010 and Special Civil Suit No.80 of 2013.
Special Civil Suit No.178 of 2010 was rejected on 15.11.2011
whereas the application under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of
the CPC filed in Special Civil Suit No.80 of 2013 whereby the suit
was rejected on 24.03.2015 on the ground of limitation and
thereafter father of plaintiff has not challenged the said judgment
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/399/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
and decree and, therefore, plaintiffs being legal heirs of Thakor
Punjaji Manaji had filed a suit challenging the above referred two
sale-deeds, present suit could not have been filed by the plaintiff
and, therefore, trial Court and appellate Court have rightly rejected
the plaint.
ANALYSIS :
6.1 Having heard learned advocate for the appellant and having
considered judgment and decree of the trial Court as confirmed by
the appellate Court and having taken into consideration the plaint
and the documents annexed with the plaint, fact remains that
plaintiff has filed suit challenging sale-deed of the year 2006 and
2007 on the ground that the facts of the present matter had come to
knowledge of the plaintiff only on 20.02.2023, but the fact remains
that sale-deeds under challenge are registered document and,
therefore, it is important now to see what is the position of law on
'deemed knowledge' of registered documents. Hon'ble the 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.
6.2 The 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/399/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
such a situation are (i) 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.
6.3 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 time. 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
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."
6.4 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.
6.5 However, the other side of the position on acquisition of
knowledge is also required to be noticed at this juncture.
6.6 In Daliben Valjibhai and Ors. v. Prajapati Kodarbhai Kachrabhai
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/399/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
and Ors., MANU/SC/1433/2024, the Hon'ble Apex Court while negating
the stance of deemed knowledge held as under:
"9. Having considered the judgment of the High Court in
detail, we are of the opinion that the findings of the High
Court are primarily factual. The High Court seems to have
got carried away by the fact that the suit was filed 13 years
after the execution of the sale deed. The question is
whether the Plaintiffs had the knowledge of the execution
of the sale deed. The High Court expected that the
Plaintiffs must have given meticulous details of the fraud
perpetuated in the plaint itself.
10. The First Appellate Court came to the conclusion that
the Defendants made an application for correcting the
revenue records only in the year 2017 and on the said
application the Deputy Collector issued notice to the
Plaintiffs in March 2017 and that was the time when the
Plaintiffs came to know about the execution of the sale
deed. It is under these circumstances that the suit was
instituted in the year 2017. While the High Court came to
the correct conclusion that Under Article 59 of the
Limitation Act, a suit can be instituted within 3 years of
the knowledge, it proceeded to return a finding that in
cases where the document is registered, the knowledge
must be presumed from the date of registration.
...
13. In view of the above, there was no justification for the
High Court in allowing the application Under Order 7
Rule 11, on issues that were not evident from the plaint
averments itself. The High Court was also not justified in
holding that the limitation period commences from the
date of registration itself. In this view of the matter the
judgment of the High Court is unsustainable."
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/399/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
6.7 Moreover, in Chhotanben Chhotanben v. Kirtibhai
Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar, MANU/SC/0346/2018 Hon'ble Apex Court
held as follows:
"15. What is relevant for answering the matter in issue in
the context of the application Under Order 7 Rule 11(d)
Code of Civil Procedure, is to examine the averments in
the plaint. The plaint is required to be read as a whole.
The defence available to the Defendants or the plea taken
by them in the written statement or any application filed by
them, cannot be the basis to decide the application Under
Order 7 Rule 11(d). Only the averments in the plaint are
germane. It is common ground that the registered sale
deed is dated 18-10- 1996. The limitation to challenge the
registered sale deed ordinarily would start running from
the date on which the sale deed was registered. However,
the specific case of the Appellant- Plaintiffs is that until
2013 they had no knowledge whatsoever regarding
execution of such sale deed by their brothers, original
Defendants 1 and 2, in favour of Jaikrishnabhai
Prabhudas Thakkar or Defendants 3 to 6. They acquired
that knowledge on 26-12-2012 and immediately took steps
to obtain a certified copy of the registered sale deed and
on receipt thereof they realised the fraud played on them
by their brothers concerning the ancestral property and
two days prior to the filing of the suit, had approached
their brothers (original Defendants 1 and 2) calling upon
them to stop interfering with their possession and to
partition the property and provide exclusive possession of
half (½) portion of the land so designated towards their
share. However, when they realised that the original
Defendants 1 and 2 would not pay any heed to their
request, they had no other option but to approach the court
of law and filed the subject suit within two days therefrom.
According to the Appellants, the suit has been filed within
time after acquiring the knowledge about the execution of
the registered sale deed. In this context, the trial court
opined that it was a triable issue and declined to accept
the application filed by Respondent 1-Defendant 5 for
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/399/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
rejection of the plaint Under Order 7 Rule 11(d). That
view commends to us".
6.8 In facts of these cases including Daliben (supra) and Chhotanben
(supra), the Hon'ble Court has come to the conclusion that it was not ex
facie evident from averments made in the Plaint that the Plaintiff had
knowledge of the registration of the sale deed.
6.9 This position has further been clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in its judgment of Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust and Ors. vs.
Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle and
Ors., MANU/SC/1382/2024
"14. The Plaintiff, in our wisdom, cannot assert or deny
something which was whether within the knowledge of
his predecessor or not, when he was not even born.
Irrespective of the above, the fact that the predecessors of
the Respondent No. 1/Plaintiff, never challenged the sale
of property to the Defendant No. 1/Appellant by court
auction and the subsequent registration of the deeds,
despite constructive notice, would imply that they had
acceded to the title of the Appellant, which cannot now be
questioned by the Plaintiff after such long time. There is
also a presumption in law that a registered document is
validly executed and is valid until it is declared as illegal.
In this regard, this Court in Prem Singh v. Birbal
MANU/SC/8139/2006, held as under:
27. There is a presumption that a registered document is
validly executed. A registered document, therefore,
prima facie would be valid in law. The onus of proof,
thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut
the presumption. In the instant case, Respondent 1 has
not been able to rebut the said presumption.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/399/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
15. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to
relevant portion of Section 3 of the Transfer of Property
Act, 1882, which reads as under:
3. Interpretation clause ...
a person is said to have notice of a fact when he actually
knows that fact, or when, but for wilful abstention from
an enquiry or search which he ought to have made, or
gross negligence, he would have known it.
Explanation I.-Where any transaction relating to
immoveable 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 deemed to have notice
of such instrument as from the date of registration or,
where the property is not all situated in one sub-district,
or where the registered instrument has been registered
Under Sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the Indian
Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), from the earliest
date on which any memorandum of such registered
instrument has been filed by any Sub-Registrar within
whose sub-district any part of the property which is
being acquired, or of the property wherein a share or
interest is being acquired, is situated:
Provided that-(1) the instrument has been registered
and its registration completed in the manner prescribed
by the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), and
the Rules made thereunder, (2) the instrument or
memorandum has been duly entered or filed, as the case
may be, in books kept Under Section 51 of that Act,
and(3)the particulars regarding the transaction to
which the instrument relates have been correctly entered
in the indexes kept Under Section 55 of that Act. ...
Explanation II.-Any person acquiring any immovable
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/399/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
property or any share or interest in any such property
shall be deemed to have notice of the title, if any, of any
person who is for the time being in actual possession
thereof.
Explanation III.-A person shall be deemed to have had
notice of any fact if his agent acquires notice thereof
whilst acting on his behalf in the course of business to
which that fact is material:
Provided that, if the agent fraudulently conceals the
fact, the principal shall not be charged with notice
thereof as against any person who was a party to or
otherwise cognizant of the fraud.
16. When a portion of the property has been conveyed by
court auction and registered in the first instance and when
another portion has been conveyed by a registered sale
deed in 1952, there is a constructive notice from the date
of registration and the presumption under Section 3 of the
Transfer of Property Act, comes into operation. The
possession, in the present case, also has been rested with
the Appellant before several decades, which operates as
notice of title. This Court in R.K. Mohd. Ubaidullah v.
Hajee C. Abdul Wahab MANU/SC/0433/2000 :
2000:INSC:338 : (2000) 6 SCC 402 at page 410, held as
follows:
15. Notice is defined in Section 3 of the Transfer of
Property Act. It may be actual where the party has
actual knowledge of the fact or constructive. "A person
is said to have notice" of a fact when he actually knows
that fact, or when, but for wilful abstention from an
inquiry or search which he ought to have made, or
gross negligence, he would have known it. ...
Section 3 was amended by the Amendment Act of 1929 in
relation to the definition of "notice". The definition has
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/399/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
been amended and supplemented by three explanations,
which settle the law in several matters of great
importance. For the immediate purpose Explanation II is
relevant. It states that actual possession is notice of the
title of the person in possession. Prior to the amendment
there had been some uncertainty because of divergent
views expressed by various High Courts in relation to the
actual possession as notice of title. A person may enter the
property in one capacity and having a kind of interest. But
subsequently while continuing in possession of the
property his capacity or interest may change. A person
entering the property as tenant later may become
usufructuary mortgagee or may be agreement holder to
purchase the same property or may be some other interest
is created in his favour subsequently. Hence with reference
to subsequent purchaser it is essential that he should make
an inquiry as to the title or interest of the person in actual
possession as on the date when the sale transaction was
made in his favour. The actual possession of a person
itself is deemed or constructive notice of the title if any,
of a person who is for the time being in actual possession
thereof. A subsequent purchaser has to make inquiry as to
further interest, nature of possession and title under which
the person was continuing in possession on the date of
purchase of the property. In the case on hand Defendants 2
to 4 contended that they were already aware of the nature
of possession of the Plaintiff over the suit property as a
tenant and as such there was no need to make any inquiry.
At one stage they also contended that they purchased the
property after contacting the Plaintiff, of course, which
contention was negatived by the learned trial court as well
as the High Court..."
6.10 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/399/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
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
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
the 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/399/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
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 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."
6.11 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/399/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
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 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."
6.12 Having noticed the aforesaid position of law on the aspect of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/399/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
'deemed knowledge' the following principles can be culled out:
1) Prima Facie, there is a presumption that a registered document
has been validly executed [Prem Singh (supra)].
2) Registration of a document, (unless rebutting the presumption
of knowledge) gives notice to public about such registration
[Suraj Lamps (supra) Para 17].
3) 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 [Dilboo (supra)].
4) After this stage, two outcomes may occur.
i. The Plaintiff has validly pleaded material and exact dates
of acquiring knowledge, etc. and has pleaded a cause of
action which is triable [cases to the likes of Daliben,
Chhotanben, etc.]
ii. The Plaintiff has made vague averments, pleaded illusory
cause, inasmuch as has pleaded such averments which
outright show that the date of knowledge as pleaded by the
Plaintiff is a false contention by way of clever drafting.
5) Therefore, at this juncture, under Order VII Rule 11, it is
important to examine and scrutinize the cause of action so
pleaded. If the cause of action is illusory, vexatious or frivolous
as being outright sham.
6.13 Therefore, the aforesaid facts clearly show that the Plaint was
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/399/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
barred by limitation and it is only to extend the period of limitation that
knowledge of such transactions is claimed to be recent. This is
impermissible in the eyes of law.
6.14 Such cases, where the Plaintiff in opinion of the Court, on a bare,
entire and meaningful reading of the Plaint, has pleaded a cause of action
which is illusory and merely by clever drafting the Plaintiff is seeking to
extend the limitation, deserve to be nipped in the bud.
6.15 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.
6.16 In view of the above referred facts Article 59 of Schedule of
Limitation Act would be required to be considered.
Article Description of suit Period of limitation Time from which
period begins to run
To cancel or set aside an Three Years. When the facts
instrument or decree or entitling the Plain-
for the rescission of a tiff to have the in-
contract. strument or decree
cancelled or set
aside or the con-
tract rescinded
first become
known to him.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/399/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
6.16 Therefore, what is to be seen is that to obtain a declaratory relief,
the limitation starts running from the day that the right to sue first ac-
crues.
6.17 In Dahiben (supra) the Court stated as thus:
"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 pe-
riod of limitation will begin to run from the date when the
right to sue first accrues. That is, if there are successive vi-
olations 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."
6.18 In view of the said provision it is made 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.
7. The other contention with respect to fact that father of the
plaintiff had also filed Special Civil Suit Nos.178 of 2010 and
Special Civil Suit No.80 of 2013 and the said facts have been
suppressed by the plaintiff while filing the present suit.
8. At this stage, it is relevant to examine the fact that documents
bearing Special Civil Suit Nos.178 of 2010 and Special Civil Suit
No.80 of 2013 having not produced with the plaint, this Court can
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/399/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
consider the said document as plaintiff has suppressed the said facts
and on perusal of the plaint of Special Civil Suit No.178 of 2010, the
father of the plaintiff has challenged the said sale-deed dated
12.04.2006 and 09.04.2007 on the ground that fraud has been
committed on the plaintiff while executing the sale-deed, the trial
Court while deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the
CPC, being Exh.17 passed an order on 24.03.2015 allowing the said
application on the ground that suit filed by father was hopelessly
time barred and father of the plaintiff had neither challenged the said
judgment and decree whereby the plaint of the father of the plaintiff
has been dismissed on the ground of limitation. In view of the said
fact that plaint has been rejected in the year 2015 and the father of
the plaintiff having not challenged the said judgment and decree, the
legal heirs could not have filed the suit on the same cause of action
claiming that fraud has been committed on the plaintiff while
executing sale-deed dated 12.04.2006 and 09.04.2007. Moreover,
except for the bare words that 'fraud has been committed', no
particular has been mentioned with respect to the said fraud.
9. In this regard, Order VI Rule 4 of Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 reads as under:
"Order VI Rule-4. Particulars to be given where necessary.
--In all cases in which the party pleading relies on any
misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, wilful default, or
undue influence, and in all other cases in which particulars
may be necessary beyond such as are exemplified in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/399/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
forms aforesaid, particulars (with dates and items if
necessary) shall be stated in the pleading."
10. Under the circumstances, this Second Appeal is devoid of any
substantial question of law so also on merit both on facts and law
Both the learned Trial Court and first appellate Court have rightly
decided the issue between the parties in the right perspective. The
appellants have failed to prove their case before the learned trial
Court as well as before the first appellate Court. This Court does not
find any substance in the present Second Appeal and, therefore, it is
dismissed at admission stage. Connected Civil Application, would
also stand rejected accordingly.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)
MISHRA AMIT V.
