Gujarat High Court
Rameshbhai Kalidas @ Kalabhai ... vs Samuben D/O. Mohanji And W/O Kalaji on 6 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/292/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 30/06/2025
Pronounced On : 06/10/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 292 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
YES
==========================================================
RAMESHBHAI KALIDAS @ KALABHAI CHAUDHARY & ANR.
Versus
SAMUBEN D/O. MOHANJI AND W/O KALAJI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MAHESH BHAVSAR(1781) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR PAVAN P VYAS(11057) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MRS HM BHAVSAR(5340) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
HIMANSHI R BALODI(8919) for the Opponent(s) No. 5
MR YOGESH G KANADE(3114) for the Opponent(s) No. 1,2,3
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s) No. 4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
CAV JUDGMENT
1. The present Revision Application has been filed challenging the order dated 31.05.2024, passed by 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar, whereby the application below Exh.15 filed by the Defendant under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC') in Regular Civil Suit No.13 of 2023, has been rejected.
2. The parties are referred as per their original status as that in the suit.
Page 1 of 21 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 09:14:55 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/292/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined BRIEF FACTS:
3. The Plaintiffs have filed the present suit on the ground that the suit property belonged to their father Mohanji Bapuji.
4. The Plaintiffs' state that they are sisters of Defendant No.1 and it is also the case of the Plaintiffs that after death of their father Mohanji, the suit property was mutated only in the name of mother of Plaintiffs and not Defendant no.1, who was minor at the relevant point of time.
5. However, as soon as Defendant No. 1 became major, his name was also mutated in the revenue record. Thereafter, it has been alleged that the Defendant no.1 executed sale-deed with respect to the suit property on 12.03.2006 which was also further transferred on 21.11.2022.
6. Therefore, Plaintiff has filed the suit for partition, declaration and has also challenged sale deeds dated 12.03.2006 and 21.11.2022.
7. The Defendant appeared in the suit proceedings and Defendant nos.3 and 4 filed Application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the CPC. The trial Court, however, vide order dated 31.05.2024 rejected the said application. Hence, the present Revision Application.
SUBMISSIONS OF DEFENDANTS - PETITIONERS
8. Learned Advocate for the Defendant has mainly argued that in the entire Plaint, there are no averments made by the Plaintiff to the effect that Plaintiff was not aware of the revenue transaction and / or fraud has been committed on the Plaintiff with respect to the revenue entries. Learned advocate for the Defendant has also argued that Plaintiffs never Page 2 of 21 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 09:14:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/292/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined challenged the revenue entries by which name of Defendant No.1 was mutated in the revenue record.
9. Moreover, Plaintiff has claimed ownership of the suit property and if the prayers that has been sought in the plaint are looked into, Plaintiff has sought for partition of the suit property. Moreover, the Plaintiff has also not given any details or particulars of the fact that as to when Plaintiffs' names were removed from the revenue record and if entire plaint is perused, Plaintiff himself has stated that after death of their father, names of Defendant no.1 and mother of Plaintiffs' and Defendant no.1 were mutated in the revenue record and, therefore, it can be clearly established that even at that point of time Plaintiffs were aware about the said revenue entry and have not objected to the said revenue entries.
10. Learned advocate for the Defendant has also argued that the fact that the revenue entries have been mutated in the revenue record after death of father in the year 1975 and the same having not been challenged till the year 2022, therefore, the plaint is required to be rejected as it is hopelessly time barred and that Plaintiff does not have any cause of action to file present suit and, therefore, it has been argued that the trial Court could not have rejected the said application. Hence, the present Revision Application is required to be allowed. 11.
11. None appeared for the Plaintiffs.
ANALYSIS
12. Having heard learned advocate for the Defendant and having considered the plaint and the documents annexed with the plaint and also the judgment and order that has been passed below Exhibit 15 by the trial Page 3 of 21 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 09:14:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/292/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined Court in Regular Civil Suit No.13 of 2023, following facts emerge:
i. The Plaintiff has come forward with a case that after the death of their father (Mohan Bapuji), the names of Defendant no.1 and their mother were inserted in the revenue record.
ii. The Plaintiff in the plaint has stated that at the time of death of father viz. Mohan Bapuji, Defendant No. 1 was minor;
iii. It has also been categorically stated in the plaint that after Defendant No. 1 became major his name was entered in the revenue record;
iv. More importantly, there is no date specifically mentioned as to when the Plaintiff has acquired such knowledge of the mutation of the name of the Defendant in the revenue entries.
v. Plaintiff also states in the Plaint that the Defendant no.1 had assured and promised that as and when suit property would be sold, the Defendant No.1 would give share of Plaintiffs.
vi. Sale-deed has been executed on 12.03.2006 and thereafter there is another sale deed dated 21.11.2022.
vii. There is again no averment in the Plaint that the Plaintiff was not aware of such transaction was made in the year 2006.
viii. At para 4, the Plaintiff states that the cause of action has also arisen in view of the fact that the Plaintiff had given oral consent to Defendant no.1 to mortgage the suit property to the Defendant no.2.
13. Therefore, even at that point of time, i.e., on 12.03.2006 the Plaintiffs Page 4 of 21 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 09:14:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/292/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined were aware that suit property is in name of Defendant No. 1. Therefore, right from the year in which the Plaintiffs themselves admit of names being entered in revenue entries and also the execution of the sale deed, there has been no claim by the Plaintiff.
14. Fact of the matter remains that Plaintiffs have remained silent for all these decades. Therefore, a mere claim to have a right in the suit property after death of their father and having not claimed any right pursuant to the death of their father and have given oral consent to Defendant no.1 to deal with the property with Defendant no.2 will not give rise to any cause of action for the present suit.
15. Moreover, the fact also remains that no date has been mentioned by the Plaintiff as to when Plaintiff came to know about the transaction regarding the suit property. The fact also remains that Plaintiff are neither owners of the property nor they have claimed to be the owners of the property, nor there is any relief sought for to declare them to be the owners of the property. The Plaintiffs have also not challenged the revenue entry and / or given any details or particulars about the date of knowledge of said transaction. Lack of these averments clearly goes on to suggest that the cause of action pleaded in the Plaint is an illusory one.
16. Though it is true that revenue entry is merely for recording of fiscal transactions and they confer no title, however, having pleaded specifically that the revenue entry was mutated on 06.02.1975. Therefore, the Plaintiff was aware of the right claimed by the Defendant over the suit property. Yet there is no other specific date averred regarding knowledge of the said transaction. Therefore, this Court cannot hold that the cause of action appears to be an illusory one.
Page 5 of 21 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 09:14:55 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/292/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined
17. Hon'ble Apex Court has held on several occasions that when there is no specific date and manner of knowledge pleaded by the Plaintiff, for a transaction and sale deed which has been executed several years ago, the Courts must be wary of the frivolity of such suits and illusory cause of action.
18. By virtue of registered sale-deed suit property came in the hands of Defendant No. 2 in the year 2006. Moreover, if the entire plaint is read, there are no avements pertaining to the sale-deed No. 6073 dated 12.06.2006 and it is only in the relevant clause that the description of the suit property is stated. Therefore, there does not appear any averment which suggests that cause of action is said to have arisen presently for the Plaintiff to file the present suit.
19. Therefore, in the present case, the Plaintiff is assumed to have deemed knowledge of the execution of the sale deed.
20. As far as the deemed knowledge is concerned, 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 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.
21. Originally, Hon'ble Apex Court in Dilboo (Dead) and Ors. vs. Dhanraji (Dead) and Ors. MANU/SC/3318/2000 held as follows:
Page 6 of 21 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 09:14:55 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/292/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined "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."
22. 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.
23. However, the flip side of the position on acquisition of knowledge is also required to be noticed at this juncture. It is pertinent to note that, Court is required to strike a balance and see whether an actual cause of action has been disclosed or is it a merely illusory one.
24. In Daliben Valjibhai and Ors. v. Prajapati Kodarbhai Kachrabhai 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 Page 7 of 21 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 09:14:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/292/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined 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."
25. Further, 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 Page 8 of 21 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 09:14:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/292/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined 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 rejection of the plaint Under Order 7 Rule 11(d). That view commends to us."Page 9 of 21 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 09:14:55 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/292/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined
26. 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.
27. However, upon a perusal of the Plaint as the present one, it becomes clear that the there is no date of knowledge pleaded in the Plaint.
28. 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 Page 10 of 21 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 09:14:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/292/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined presumption. In the instant case, Respondent 1 has not been able to rebut the said presumption.
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 Page 11 of 21 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 09:14:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/292/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined 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 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 Page 12 of 21 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 09:14:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/292/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined 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 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 Page 13 of 21 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 09:14:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/292/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined 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..."
29. 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 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 Page 14 of 21 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 09:14:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/292/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined 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 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.
30. Even coordinate bench of this Court in several judgments has adopted the Page 15 of 21 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 09:14:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/292/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined 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 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 Page 16 of 21 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 09:14:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/292/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined 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.
31. Having noticed the aforesaid position of law on the aspect of 'deemed knowledge' the following principles can be culled out:
i. Prima Facie, there is a presumption that a registered document has been validly executed.
ii. Registration of a document, (unless rebutting the presumption of knowledge) gives notice to public about such registration.
Iii. Whenever a document is registered the date of Page 17 of 21 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 09:14:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/292/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined 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)].
iv. After this stage, two outcomes may occur.
a. 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.] b. 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 or that the Plaintiff has not pleaded any date of the cause of action.
v. 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.
32. Therefore, the aforesaid facts clearly show that the present Plaint was barred by limitation and the Plaintiffs have not pleaded the date of knowledge despite having known the revenue entries and right of the Defendants over the suit property. This is impermissible in the eyes of law.
Page 18 of 21 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 09:14:55 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/292/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined
33. 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.
34. The present case falls in the category where the Plaintiff has pleaded a completely illusory and frivolous cause of action and has not pleaded any date of knowledge.
35. Even if the version of the Plaintiffs in the Plaint is taken on demurrer, it transpires that the Plaintiffs have not duly verified or had the diligence to verify that an entry has been mutated in the revenue records of the suit property till the year 2022, whereas the first sale deed under challenge is of the year 2006.
36. 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.
37. In view of the above referred facts Article 59 of Schedule of Limitation Act would be required to be considered.
Description of Period of Time from which period begins to
suit limitation run
59
To cancel or set Three Years. When the facts entitling the
aside an Plaintiff to have the instrument or
instrument or decree cancelled or set aside or
decree or for the contract rescinded first
the rescission of become known to him.
a contract.
Page 19 of 21
Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 09:14:55 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/292/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025
undefined
38. 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 accrues.
39. In (2020) 7 SCC 366, Dahiben vs. Arvindbhia Kalyanji Bhanushali deced. Thro' legal representatives & ors., 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 period of limitation will begin to run from the date when the right to sue first accrues. That is, if there are successive violations 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."
40. In view of the said provision it makes it 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.
41. It is pertinent to note that when there is no date of knowledge pleaded by the Plaintiff in the Plaint, it is deemed to be admitted that even the sale deeds of 2006 and 2022 were within the knowledge of the Plaintiff. Having accepted the same, the Plaintiff now cannot turn around and say that the Plaintiff is merely seeking partition. Therefore, the present Plaint seems to have raised an illusory cause of action and hence, cannot be said to be within the period of limitation.
Page 20 of 21 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 09:14:55 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/292/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined CONCLUSION
42. Therefore, as discussed above, the present case is a case of clever drafting by the Plaintiff to extend and shroud the actual period of limitation. The Plaintiff cannot be permitted to challenge registered sale deeds after a period of over 26 years in view of the discussion above.
43. In view of the foregoing, the present Plaint is barred by Limitation and hence, the same is required to be rejected under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11. Consequently, the present Civil Revision Application deserves to be allowed and is thus allowed. The Plaint in Regular Civil Suit No.13 of 2023 is hereby rejected.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J) MISHRA AMIT V. Page 21 of 21 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 09:14:55 IST 2025