The Supreme Court bench comprising of Honorable Justice(s) L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Indu Malhotra in the civil suit titled as Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra)(D) Thr lrs & ors. have held the present case to be a classic one, where the plaintiffs by clever drafting of plaint, attempted to make out an illusory cause of action, to bring the suit within the period of limitation.

The judgment was delivered by the Apex Court on 9th July 2020.

Facts of the Case

The Civil Appeal was filed by the plaintiff to challenge the impugned judgment and order passed by Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court, which affirmed the Order of the Trial Court, and held that suit filed by the Plaintiff was barred by limitation.

The subject-matter of the suit pertains to the agricultural plot which was owned by the Plaintiffs and was valued by the collector at Rs. 1,74,02,000. The permission to sell was granted by the collector and land was sold by the Plaintiffs to Respondent No.1 vide registered sale deed dated 02.07.2009.

Respondent No. 1 - purchaser issued 36 cheques for Rs.1,74,02,000 towards payment of the sale consideration in favor of the Plaintiffs. The Respondent No. 1 subsequently sold the suit property to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 vide registered Sale Deed dated 01.04.2013, for a sale consideration of Rs. 2,01,00,000/-.

Now, civil suit was filed by the Plaintiffs in 2014, before the Principal Civil Judge, Surat against the original purchaser i.e. Respondent No. 1, and also impleaded the subsequent purchasers i.e. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as defendants.

Arguments raised by the Plaintiffs

The Plaintiffs contended that they were totally illiterate, and were not able to read and write, and were only able to put their thumb impression on the Sale Deed dated 02.07.2009. The Sale Deed was obtained without payment of full consideration. The Respondent No.1 had paid only Rs. 40,000 through 6 cheques, and remaining 30 cheques for Rs.1,73,62,000 were “bogus” cheques. The Plaintiffs prayed for cancellation of the Sale Deed dated 02.07.2009, and also prayed that the subsequent Sale Deed dated 01.04.2013 be declared as illegal, void and ineffective; and, the physical possession of the suit property be restored to the Plaintiffs.

Arguments raised by the Respondents

Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed an Application for Rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the CPC, contending that the suit filed by the Plaintiffs was barred by limitation and that no cause of action had been disclosed in the plaint.

It was further submitted that if the Sale Deed dated 02.07.2009 was being challenged, then the suit ought to have been filed within three years i.e. on or before 02.07.2012.

Analysis of the Case

In the present case, the Plaintiff has in fact accepted and acknowledged the payment of the full sale consideration from Respondent No.1, through cheques which were issued prior to the execution of the Sale Deed, during the period 07.07.2008 to 02.07.2009.

Also, the transaction having been executed through a registered document, was in the public domain, and in the knowledge of the Plaintiffs right from the beginning. Also, if the Plaintiffs have not been able to encash 30 cheques, a complaint ought to have been filed, or proceedings initiated for recovery of the unpaid sale consideration. There was, however, nothing on record to show that the Plaintiffs had made any complaint in this regard for a period of over 5 years.

The Plaintiffs also failed to produce the returned cheques, their passbooks, bank statements, or any other document to support their averments in the plaint.

The decision of the Court

The Supreme Court recorded that, “The remedy under Order VII Rule 11 is an independent and special remedy, wherein the Court is empowered to summarily dismiss a suit at the threshold, without proceeding to record evidence, and conducting a trial, on the basis of the evidence adduced if it is satisfied that the action should be terminated on any of the grounds contained in this provision.”

The underlying object of Order VII Rule 11 (a) is that if in a suit, no cause of action is disclosed, or the suit is barred by limitation under Rule 11 (d), the Court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in the suit. In such a case, it would be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation, so that further judicial time is not wasted.

The Supreme Court was of the view that if the case made out in the Plaint is to be believed, it would mean that almost 99% of the sale consideration i.e. Rs.1,73,62,000 allegedly remained unpaid throughout. Also, additionally, despite payment being not received, the Plaintiffs remained silent for a period of over 5 and 1⁄2 years, without even issuing a legal notice for payment of the unpaid sale consideration, or instituting any proceeding for the recovery of the amount, till the filing of the present suit in December 2014. It is thus, clear that the present suit filed by the Plaintiffs is vexatious, meritless, and does not disclose a right to sue.

It is clear that the Plaintiffs apparently filed the suit after the property was further sold by Respondent No.1 to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, only to cast doubt on the title of Respondent No.1 to the suit property.

The Plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proof that the suit was filed within the period of limitation and thus, it was rejected by the Apex Court. Supreme Court held the present case to be an abuse of the process of the court and the cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- was imposed on the Appellant to be payable to the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 within a period of twelve weeks of the passing of the judgment i.e. 9th July 2020.

Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com

Share this Document :

Picture Source :

 
Sparsh Jain