Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kanta Bai vs Mangi Lal @ Mangi Das (2025:Rj-Jd:2690) on 15 January, 2025
Author: Birendra Kumar
Bench: Birendra Kumar
[2025:RJ-JD:2690]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 19/2021
Kanta Bai W/o Mangidas Bairagi, Aged About 70 Years, R/o
Mistry Market, Begu Dis. Chittorgarh
----Petitioner
Versus
Mangi Lal @ Mangi Das S/o Baludas Bairagi, R/o Begu, Dis.
Chittorgarh
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nitin Prakash Trivedi.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashwini Kumar Babel.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR
Order
15/01/2025
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 05.02.2021
passed in Civil Original Suit No.22/2020 whereby the trial court
has refused the prayer of the petitioner to reject the plaint under
Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC.
2. Prayer was on the ground that the suit was barred by
limitation.
3. The plaintiff/respondent had brought the above suit for
cancellation of gift deed dated 14.10.1998 said to be executed by
the plaintiff in favour of the defendant/petitioner. The plaintiff
asserted that in fact he had gone to execute a deed of Will and not
a gift deed but the defendant/petitioner surreptitiously got a gift
deed registered. The plaintiff came to know about the gift deed on
27.08.2020 after he got a certified copy of the deed. In para 4 of
the plaint, details of the circumstances of execution of the
aforesaid deed is mentioned and the plaintiff has specifically
[2025:RJ-JD:2690] (2 of 3) [CR-19/2021]
stated that he has not gone to the registry office for execution and
registration of the deed under challenge.
4. Article 59 of the Limitation Act reads as follows:-
59. To cancel or set Three years When the facts
aside an instrument entitling the plaintiff
or decree or for the to have the
rescission of a instrument or decree
contract. cancelled or set aside
or the contract
rescinded first
become known to
him.
Evidently, the limitation would start to run from the date of
first knowledge of the decree or the instrument which is sought to
be cancelled.
5. The law is well settled that while considering the prayer for
rejection of plaint, the Court is required to see only the pleadings
and not the defence of the defendant. A perusal of entire plaint
makes it crystal clear that from the date of knowledge of the
impugned deed, the suit was filed within time.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that valuation of
the suit was same which was valuation of the instrument which
was executed 20 years back. Therefore, the suit suffers from not
proper valuation of the suit at market rate and payment of
appropriate Court fee.
7. Unless the Court specifically directs the plaintiff to correct
the valuation as required under clause (b) or to make payment of
court fee under clause (c) of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the plaint
cannot be rejected. In the case on hand, the Court has not
[2025:RJ-JD:2690] (3 of 3) [CR-19/2021]
directed to correct the valuation till the prayer for rejection of
plaint was made.
8. The issue of limitation which is controverted by the
defendant, in the facts & circumstances of this case, is a mixed
question of law and fact and not a pure question of law under
which a delayed suit cannot be entertained.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raghwendra Sharan Singh Vs.
Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead) reported in AIR 2019 SC 1430.
The aforesaid judgment is not applicable in the facts and
circumstances of this case.
10. In Raghvendra case (supra) the registered gift deed was
challenged after 22 years of the execution only by asserting that it
was sham transaction. The plaintiff had not prayed for cancellation
of the gift deed or declaration to set aside the same. In that
circumstance the Hon'ble Supreme Court said that instead of
seeking for proper relief for declaration or cancellation of gift
deed, a cleverly drafted plaint was only placed for bringing the
case under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, the
Supreme Court was not inclined to interfere with the impugned
order.
11. Accordingly, this revision petition stands dismissed.
(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J
57-sumer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
