Madhya Pradesh High Court
Savyasachi Build Home Pvt. Ltd. Through ... vs Narendra on 6 March, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5535
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
CIVIL REVISION No. 671 of 2023
SAVYASACHI BUILD HOME PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS
DIRECTOR ANOOP SINGH YADAV
Versus
NARENDRA AND OTHERS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Veer Kumar Jain, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Peyush
Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Nitin Phadke, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and
2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(Reserved on 20.01.2025)
(Pronounced on 06.03.2025)
1. This revision under Section 115 of the CPC has been preferred by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5535
defendant No.2/petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated
18.08.2023 passed by First Civil Judge, Class-II, District Dhar in RCSA
168/2022 whereby an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC
preferred by him has been rejected.
2. Plaintiffs/respondents 1 and 2 have instituted an action against
the defendants for declaration of their title to the suit lands, declaration
that recording of defendants in the revenue records is illegal, for
declaration that the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of
defendant No.2 is null and void and for permanent injunction
restraining the defendants from alienating the suit land and from
interfering with their possession over the same.
3. The plaintiffs have submitted that they are the owners of the suit
lands and are recorded over the same in the revenue records. They are
in possession thereof. Defendant No.1 does not have any title to the
same. He has however in collusion with the revenue authorities got
himself recorded over the suit lands which is illegal. Taking advantage
of the same he has executed sale deed with respect to part of the suit
lands in favour of defendant No.2 on 05.05.2017. Plaintiffs acquired
knowledge of the said fact only on 05.09.2022 and also of the fact that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5535
defendant No.2 is further attempting to alienate the suit lands. On such
contentions the plaintiffs have instituted the suit claiming reliefs as
aforesaid.
4. The application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC was preferred
by defendant No.2 on the ground that no cause of action has accrued to
the plaintiffs for institution of the suit. There is no pleading in the plaint
in that regard. The suit lands are diverted land but the plaintiffs have
valued the claim incorrectly and have paid deficit Court fees thereupon.
The plaintiffs have always been aware of the sale deed executed in
favour of defendant No.2 hence the suit is barred by time. Construction
of a colony over the suit lands has been made by defendant No.2 in
presence of and to the knowledge of plaintiffs. During life time of
defendant No.1 the plaintiffs do not have any right to lay any claim over
the suit lands.
5. The application was contested by the plaintiffs by filing their
reply to the same. By the impugned order the application has been
rejected by the trial Court by observing that cause of action has been
pleaded by the plaintiffs. The issue as regards valuation and Court fees
can be considered at the appropriate stage of the proceedings. It cannot
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5535
be said on the basis of the plaint averments that the claim is barred by
time and the question whether the suit lands are owned by defendant
No.1 and are ancestral lands or are owned by plaintiffs can only be
determined upon recording of evidence of the parties.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for defendant No.2 has submitted that
from a reading of the entire plaint it is apparent that no cause of action
has accrued to the plaintiffs for institution of the suit. The suit lands
have been diverted by order passed by the revenue authority and
diverted land revenue has been fixed for the same. The same hence
could not have been valued at 20 times of the land revenue as has been
done by the plaintiffs. The sale deed executed in favour of defendant
No.2 is a registered sale deed and the period of limitation for getting the
same set aside would begin from the date of its registration. The
construction of colony etc. has been done by defendant No.2 with
knowledge of plaintiffs. The suit is hence apparently barred by time.
Since defendant No.2 has purchased the land from defendant No.1,
during his life time plaintiffs cannot lay any right over the same.
Reliance has been placed by him on the decisions in T. Arivandandam
V/s. T.V. Satyapal and Another (1977) 4 SCC 467, Dahiben V/s.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5535
Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead Through Legal
Representatives and Others (2020) 7 SCC 366, Suraj Lamp and
Industries Pvt. Ltd. Through Director V/s. State of Haryana and
Another 2009 (4) M.P.L.J. 315, Sudhirdas V/s. United Church of D
Canada India, Dhar Beneficiary and Others 2019 SCC OnLine MP
1132, Anita Jain V/s. Dilip Kumar and Another 2018 (1) M.P.L.J.
554, Ramti Devi (Smt.) V/s. Union of India 1995 (1) M.P. WEEKLY
NOTES No.186, Anil V/s. Pappu and Others 2024 SCC OnLine MP
1814, Meharchand Das V/s. Lal Babu Siddique and Others (2007)
14 SCC 253 and Karim Bhai V/s. State of Maharashtra and Others
ILR 2009 (3) MP - 3167.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiffs has submitted that
from the plaint averments it is apparent that cause of action has accrued
to the plaintiffs. The suit lands are agricultural land and the claim has
been correctly valued by plaintiffs and adequate Court fees has been
paid thereupon. The suit has been instituted by plaintiffs within a period
of three years from the date of acquiring knowledge of the sale deed
hence the same is within time. The plaintiffs have pleaded that they are
the owners of the suit lands hence the issue of them being ancestral
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5535
does not arise. Reliance has been placed by him on the decision of the
Apex Court in Chhotanben and Another V/s. Kiritbhai
Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar and Others AIR 2018 SCC 2447.
8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties and have perused the record.
9. There can be no dispute with the proposition that the plaint has to
be read in a meaningful manner and not in a formal manner. The same
should show a clear right to sue and it should be ascertained that the
litigation has not been inspired by vexatious motives as has been held
by the Apex Court in T. Arivandandam (supra). The provisions of
Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC are mandatory in nature as has been held in
Dahiben (supra). However, the aforesaid legal principles are to be
appreciated in view of the facts of the present case.
10. It is well settled that at the time of consideration of an application
under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC only the plaint averments and the
documents filed along with the plaint which can be considered. The
written statement of the defendants and the documents filed by them
and also the averments made by them in their application under Order 7
Rule 11 of the CPC cannot be considered. The plaint averments have to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5535
be taken to be true.
11. In the plaint the plaintiffs have specifically pleaded that they are
the owners of the suit lands. Defendant No.1 has illegally and without
their knowledge got himself mutated over the suit lands and has sold
part of the same in favour of defendant No.2 which sale deed is null and
void and has cast a cloud upon their title. Defendant No.2 is further
attempting to alienate the suit lands. There is a clear and specific cause
of action pleaded by the plaintiffs in the plaint as regards threat to their
title and possession. It hence cannot be said that no cause of action has
been pleaded by the plaintiffs.
12. Though it has been contended by the learned counsel for
defendant No.2 that registration of a document is notice to the entire
world that such a document has been executed as has been held by the
Apex Court in Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra) but from
the said decision it is observed that the principle laid down therein is to
the aforesaid extent only. It has not been held that since registration of
the sale deed would be notice to the world, the period of limitation for
seeking its cancellation would begin from the date of its registration
itself. On the contrary in the case of Sudhirdas (supra) it has been held
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5535
that the period of limitation for challenging a registered sale deed is 3
years from the date of knowledge. It has not been held that the period
would begin from the date of registration of the sale deed.
13. In the case of Anita Jain (supra), Ramti Devi (supra) and Anil
(supra) it was held that the plaintiff therein always had knowledge of
the execution of the sale deed but instituted the suit beyond a period of
three years therefrom hence the same is barred by time. However, in the
present case the plaintiffs have categorically stated that they were not
aware of the sale deed and acquired knowledge of the same for the first
time only on 05.09.2022. They have filed the suit on or about
14.09.2022. The same hence cannot be said to be admittedly barred by
time. The question as to when plaintiffs acquired knowledge of the sale
deed would be a matter of evidence to be adjudicated upon by the trial
Court during trial. On the basis of the plaint averments the suit cannot
be held to be barred by time.
14. The plaintiffs have valued their claim at 20 times the land
revenue of the suit lands and have paid the Court fees accordingly.
Though it is contended by learned counsel for defendant No.2 that the
suit lands are diverted and diverted land revenue has been fixed for the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5535
same but the said issue would also be a matter of evidence and would
be required to be proved by the defendants. It has rightly been observed
by the trial Court that if at any stage of the proceedings it is found that
the suit has been under valued and deficit Court fees has been paid
thereupon the plaintiffs would be directed to cure the said defect. Thus
only on the ground of under valuation and deficit Court fees having
been paid, the plaint cannot be rejected at present.
15. The plaintiffs have pleaded that they are the owners of the suit
lands but defendant No.1 has executed sale deed with respect to the
same. They have questioned the authority itself of defendant No.1 to
sell the suit lands. Whether the suit lands are ancestral lands of
defendant No.1 or plaintiffs are the owners of the same can only be
decided on merits after recording of evidence of the parties.
16. Though it has been contended by the learned counsel for
defendant No.2 that plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit land but
have not sought relief of recovery of possession hence their claim is
barred by virtue of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act but it is
observed that no such objection was taken by defendant No.2 in their
application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. In any case the plaintiffs
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5535
have prayed for relief of permanent injunction restraining the
defendants from interfering with their possession over the suit lands and
in paragraph No.3 have specifically stated that they are in possession
thereof. Thus at this stage it cannot be said that the claim is barred by
virtue of provision of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. In such
circumstances the judgment in the case of Meharchand Das (supra)
and Karim Bhai (supra) do not help defendant No.2 in any manner.
17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any error having
been committed by the trial Court in rejecting the application under
Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC preferred by defendant No.2. No infirmity
is found in the order passed by the trial Court which is accordingly
affirmed as a result of which the revision is dismissed.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
ns
