Gujarat High Court
Andarsing Vajesing Koli vs Hemanginiben Alias Hemuben Shah ... on 27 June, 2018
Author: Biren Vaishnav
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
C/CRA/281/2014 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 281 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to
see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law
as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any
order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
ANDARSING VAJESING KOLI
Versus
HEMANGINIBEN ALIAS HEMUBEN SHAH DAUGHTER OF JAYANTILAL
MAGANLAL SHAH
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ANSHIN DESAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR. ZALAK B
PIPALIA(6161) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MR PARTHIV B SHAH(2678) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 10,11,12,13,8,9
MS SM AHUJA(118) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK(3) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 15
RULE SERVED(64) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 14
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
Date : 27/06/2018
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This Civil Revision Application is filed by original defendants no. 7, 8, 10, 11 & 12 challenging the order dated Page 1 of 15 C/CRA/281/2014 JUDGMENT 11.08.2014 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Jetpur-Pavi on application below Ex. 17 in Regular Civil Suit No. 3 of 2014. By the aforesaid order, the learned Judge rejected the application of the defendants no. 7, 8, 10, 11 & 12 which they had filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). The respondents no. 1 to 7 are the original plaintiffs who had filed the suit.
2. The facts in brief are as under:
2.1 At the outset, before appreciating the context of the suit filed by the parties thereto, it would be relevant to mention that it is a suit between family members who are arrayed as defendants no. 1 to 6 and the plaintiffs. The present applicants who were defendants no. 7, 8, 10 to 12 are purchasers of property in the years 1994 and 1998 respectively pursuant to a sale deed executed in their favour by the defendants no. 1 and 2, namely Kantilal Maganlal Shah and Rameshchandra Maganlal Shah. The family pedigree is as under:
Maganlal (died before about 35 years) Nirmala Kantilal Rasiklal Jayantilal Rameshchandra Aruna (D1) (Died before 23 (D2) (P7) years) Heirs Heirs ↓ ↓ Hemangini(P1) Vilasben (D3) Varsha (P2) Ragini (D4) Bharti (P3) Anamika (P4) Shilpa (D5) Avantika (P4) Rupal (D6) Yogini (P5) Page 2 of 15 C/CRA/281/2014 JUDGMENT 2.2 From the aforesaid pedigree, what is evident is that the daughters of Mr. Jayantilal Maganlal Shah were the original plaintiffs no. 1 to 6 and their aunt Arunaben was original plaintiff no. 7. Defendants no.1 and 2 namely Mr. Kantilal Shah and Mr. Rameshchandra Shah are uncles of the plaintiffs who had entered into an agreement and sold the lands to the present applicants (defendants no. 7, 8, 10 to 12) in the year 1994 and 1998.
2.3 It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit was instituted by them seeking decree of declaration that the plaintiffs have an equal share/right in the ancestral suit property. Reading of the plaint would suggest that the suit properties in question were properties at village Moti Rasli being Survey Nos. 73 and 77 at Pavi Jetpur, Survey No. 73/1 at village Moti Rasli and land bearing Survey No. 105/A, 105/B and 106/2 situated at village Nani Rasli. It was the case of the plaintiffs that all these properties were ancestral properties and the plaintiffs had an equal share by succession as they were the heirs of their deceased grandfather one Shri Maganlal Hargovindbhai Shah. Assertion was made in the plaint that the defendants no. 2 & 3 had unauthorisedly sold their share in part of the lands in favour of defendants no. 7, 8, 10 to 12. The case of the plaintiffs was that their father Jayantibhai Shah and the co-plaintiff no. 7 - their aunt had not signed any release deed and that their signatures in such release deed was obtained by fraud. It was the case of the plaintiffs that the consequential change in the revenue entries in the name of the present applicants was fraudulently done in the record of rights. Revenue proceedings challenging those entries were Page 3 of 15 C/CRA/281/2014 JUDGMENT pending in the revenue court and an appeal was made on 23.12.2013.
2.4 Reading of the plaint would suggest that the cause of action to file such suit had arisen when the plaintiffs had filed RTS proceedings on 11.11.2013 and 12.12.2013. It was their case that they had an equal share in the properties mentioned hereinabove. Based on such averments, the plaintiffs prayed before the trial court that the sale deed executed for Survey Nos. 73 in favour of the defendant no. 12 and the sale deed executed in favour of defendants no. 7, 10 & 11 for lands bearing Survey No. 105A, 105B, 106/2 and 105 be declared as null and void.
2.5 The present applicants being defendants no. 7, 8, 10 to 12 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code. It was their case that the suit filed against them was hopelessly time barred; that they had become owners of the properties by virtue of the registered sale deeds entered into in their favour on 15.02.1994 and 16.02.1998; that registration of sale deeds would be deemed knowledge of such transactions and the suit that is instituted on 29.01.2014 therefore vis-a-vis the present applicants is hopelessly time barred. That the plaint is adroitly drafted and though the prayers mentioned that the sale deeds in question be set aside, on purpose, the dates of the sale deeds are not mentioned so as to give an impression that the suit is within the period of limitation. In the Order 7 Rule 11 application, so filed by the defendants - petitioners herein, it was further the case of the defendants that now it was 23 years that Mr. Jayantilal Shah had died on 07.03.1990 and the alleged fraud in the signatures after such a long lapse Page 4 of 15 C/CRA/281/2014 JUDGMENT of time, but merely because the co-plaintiff Arunaben had filed criminal proceedings, would not give rise to a cause of action which was long dead.
2.6 By the impugned order, the learned trial court essentially rejected the application on two grounds. Firstly, the learned trial court held that since the defendants no. 1 to 6 had not filed any application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code for rejection of the plaint, only at the behest of defendants no. 7 to 12, the suit could not be partly rejected. Secondly, it was the stand of the trial court in dismissing the application of the applicants herein that the proceedings regarding the revenue entries were pending before the revenue authorities and therefore it was the specific case of the plaintiffs that it was only in the year 2012 that they derived knowledge of such fraud and therefore when the plaint is appreciated in its entirety, it cannot be said that provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code would be attracted so as to reject the plaint.
3. Mr. Anshin Desai, learned Senior Advocate appearing with Mr. Zalak Pipaliya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants has submitted that the suit is hopelessly time barred. Relying on the dates and events, Mr. Desai has submitted that except Mr. Kantilal Shah and Mr. Rameshchandra Shah - defendants no. 1 and 2 herein, rest of the heirs had relinquished their shares from Survey Nos. 73 and 77, the lands of village Jetpur Pavi. As far as lands in village Nani Rasli are concerned, namely lands of Survey No. 105 and 106/2, as a result of entry no. 353 on 27.07.1975, as a result of partition between the brothers, the defendant no. 2 Page 5 of 15 C/CRA/281/2014 JUDGMENT Mr. Rameshchandra Shah became the absolute owner to which the plaintiffs' father Mr. Jayantilal Shah had consented. Mr. Desai further submitted that since the defendants no. 1 and 2 had become absolute owners of the lands in question, on 15.02.1994 registered sale deed no. 88 was executed in favour of defendants no. 7 to 11 by the defendant no. 2 Rameshchandra Shah for the lands bearing Survey No. 105/A, 105/B and 106/2 whereas a registered sale deed no. 116 was entered into by both the defendants no. 1 and 2 in favour of the defendant no. 12 for land of Pavi Jetpur being Survey No. 73 on 16.02.1998.
3.1 Mr. Desai further submitted that challenge to the revenue entries have been made by the plaintiffs only in the year 2013 i.e. on 11.11.2013 and 20.12.2013. Reading of the plaint would suggest that nowhere in the entire body of the plaint have they explained as to when exactly did they come to know of the sale deeds entered in favour of the present applicants. The suit, therefore, that was instituted on 29.01.2014 without even an explanation as to when did the plaintiffs come to know of this sale would not extend the limitation merely because fraud is alleged against the defendants. Mr. Desai further submitted that Mr. Jayantilal Shah - father of the original plaintiffs no. 1 to 6 had never challenged the partition which was with the consent of the defendants no. 1 and 2 and it was therefore not open for the daughters to come forth after 24 years of his death to claim that the signatures that were obtained on the release were fraudulent.
3.2 Mr. Desai, further contended that the trial court Page 6 of 15 C/CRA/281/2014 JUDGMENT committed an error in not entertaining the application without Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code only on the ground that the suit could not be partly rejected against the defendants no. 7, 8, 10 to 12. It was submitted by Mr. Desai that when apparently against the present applicants who were defendants what was under challenge was the sale entered into in the years 1994 and 1998, the relief claimed against them was absolutely time barred and the learned trial court ought to have dismissed the suit qua the present applicants. As far as rest of the defendants are concerned, the suit could proceed and at best since it was a suit for partition, if the court found that the partition was without consent, damages could be awarded to the defendants no. 1 to 6.
3.3 In support of his submissions, Mr. Desai relied on the following decisions:
(I) Fatehji and Company and Another vs. L.M. Nagpal and Others reported in (2015) 8 SCC 390. This judgement was relied upon by Mr. Desai in support of his submission that in a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell, Article 54 prescribed a bar of limitation of three years. A plaint so filed can be rejected when apparently the suit is so barred by limitation.
(II) Emrald Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs. Manguben Thakor, Daughter of Aataji Chaturji Thakor and Others reported in 2017(1) GLR 273.
Pointing to the facts of the aforesaid suit, Mr. Desai contended that in the said case also the plaintiff had prayed for a relief of cancellation of sale deeds. The Page 7 of 15 C/CRA/281/2014 JUDGMENT defendant had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code. It was submitted by Mr. Desai relying on para 15 of the judgement that even if a party who institutes a civil suit on the ground of fraud, the challenge has to be made by the party alleging fraud within the period of limitation of three years as prescribed under the Limitation Act and the date of the registration of the documents therefore becomes a date of deemed knowledge.
(III) Citing the judgement in the case of Poonambhai Shanabhai Valand Decd. And Others vs. Hasmukhbhai Bachubhai Parsana reported in
2017(2) GLH 765, Mr. Desai submitted that in absence of any explanation as to when they had come to know of the alleged sale deed, reading of the averments in the plaint with reference to the cause of action would suggest that the suit is time barred.
(IV) According to Mr. Desai, as is held by the Apex Court in the case of I.T.C. Limnited vs. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and Others reported in (1998) 2 SCC 70, the sole purpose of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code is to see that a litigation which is meaningless must be nipped in the bud. Support is also taken from a judgement in the case of Heirs of Decd. Maniben D/O Naranbhai Ishvarbhai and Wd/O Kantilal Nathalal Patel rendered in Second Appeal No. 109 of 2016 wherein according to Mr. Desai having considered the position of law in the judgements of the Apex Court, the Court on the facts held that suits which are prima facie time barred must not be allowed to Page 8 of 15 C/CRA/281/2014 JUDGMENT continue and should be nipped in the bud.
(V) In the case of Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society Represented by its Chairman vs. Ponniamman Educational Trust Represented by its Chairperson/Managing Trustee reported in (2012) 8 SCC 706, according to Mr. Desai, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is always open for a trial court to reject a plaint in part against some defendants and the suit can proceed in part with regard to other defendants. Reliance was placed on the facts of this case by drawing my attention to paragraphs 5, 7 and 25, 27 and 30 of the said decision. According to Mr. Desai, when apparently there was absence of cause of action against the defendants - applicants herein, the suit against the present applicants ought to have been dismissed.
(VI) Support is also sought for from the decision in the case of M.V. "Sea Success I" vs. Liverpool and London Steamship Protection and Indemnity Association Ltd. and Another reported in AIR 2002 Bombay 151. By relying on para 57 of the judgement which suggests that the plaint can be dismissed in part, he has sought support for his submission that when the suit is apparently barred by limitation, plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code ought to have been rejected.
(VII) Mr. Desai has further relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Kanjibhai Bhagwanjibhai Patel vs. Shamjibhai Sorathiya Through P.O.A., Dharmesh P. Trivedi & Others reported in 2013(1) Page 9 of 15 C/CRA/281/2014 JUDGMENT GLR 51.
(VIII) Relying on the judgement in the case of Dilboo (Smt)(Dead) By LRS. And Others vs. Dhanraji (Smt) (Dead) and Others reported in (2000) 7 SCC 702, Mr. Desai contended that whenever a document is registered, it is the deed of registration which becomes the date of deemed knowledge. It is not the case of the present plaintiffs that they could not discover such facts even by due diligence and therefore as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgement, the suit of the plaintiffs was apparently time barred.
4. As against these submissions made by Mr. Desai, Ms. S.M. Ahuja, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 1 to 7 who are the original plaintiffs has supported the order of the trial Court. Ms. Ahuja has submitted that the plaintiffs no. 1 to 6 were daughters of Mr. Jayantilal. The plaintiffs no. 1 to 6 and one Arunaben - their aunt had filed the suit seeking a declaration that they have an equal share in the ancestral property and therefore permanent injunction was sought by them.
4.1 Mr. Ahuja submitted that the father of plaintiffs no. 1 to 6 and the defendants no. 1 and 2 who were real brothers of their father had agricultural lands situated at Pavi Jetpur and at Moti Rasli as well as Nani Rasli which were ancestral properties. These properties were inherited from their grandfather. That the defendants no. 1 and 2 with a bad intention to defeat the rights of the father of the plaintiffs no. 1 to 6 forged the signatures on 01.01.1986 by recording false statements and in connivance with the Talati-cum-Mantri.
Page 10 of 15C/CRA/281/2014 JUDGMENT Reliance is placed on the affidavit-in-reply to suggest that on the date on which such forgery is made, Mr. Jayantilal was at a distance of about 600 kms of the sister's place and therefore both of them could not have signed the release deed. Forgery, therefore, was apparent at the hands of defendants no. 1 and 2 in such release deed and therefore criminal proceedings were taken on 25.07.2014 by the plaintiff no. 7. It was further pointed out by Ms. Ahuja that for having committed fraud and forgery in connivance with the revenue authorities whereby the name of the plaintiffs no. 1 to 6's father was deleted, revenue proceedings were initiated in November 2013 which were pending before the Deputy Collector. It was therefore only in the year 2013 that they had knowledge of such transactions and therefore the contention of Mr. Desai that the suit was barred by limitation was a submission which was misconceived.
4.2 The transfer of the lands in question by virtue of sale deeds in the years 1994 and 1998 in favour of the present applicants was therefore void ab-initio and therefore the prayers made in the plaint for setting aside such sale deeds was proper. Ms. Ahuja further submitted that the learned trial court did not commit any error in allowing the application against passing an order of deleting the defendants no. 7 to 12 from the array of parties in the suit and allowing their application would amount to non-suiting the plaintiffs - respondents no. 1 to 7 herein.
5. I have considered the submissions of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties. The provisions of Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code read and point Page 11 of 15 C/CRA/281/2014 JUDGMENT out that if apparently a suit is barred by law, the same cannot be allowed to proceed and as is held by the judgements referred to hereinabove by Mr. Anshin Desai, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, such proceedings have to be nipped in the bud.
6. From the sequence of events that have been narrated hereinabove, what is evident is that after the heirs except defendants no. 2 and 3 relinquished their shares in the lands in question, which are sold in favour of the applicants, revenue entries were made in the year 1986. The defendants no. 1 and 2 became absolute owners of the lands in question and therefore were rightly entitled to transfer such lands which they did by registered sale deeds dated 15.02.1994 and 16.02.1998. Reading of the averments in the plaint would suggest that a lame defence of a cause of action having arisen in the year 2013 is projected as being date of knowledge of such transactions. Nothing in the plaint and the averments therein would suggest that as to what happened between the years 1994/1998 to 2013 to suggest any explanation why no action was taken and why suddenly in the year 2013 did knowledge dawn on the plaintiffs of such entries.
6.1 As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Fatehji and Company and Another (supra), merely because the cause of action states that there is a pendency of disputes in the revenue proceedings and fraud when writ large on the entire transaction, the period of limitation would not stand extended, particularly, when the plaintiffs have not come out with any material to show that they had no knowledge prior to the year 2013. Even when reference is Page 12 of 15 C/CRA/281/2014 JUDGMENT made to the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society (supra), reading paragraphs no. 5 to 7 and 25, 27 and 30 which are reproduced hereinbelow, it would suggest that the learned trial court was in grave error in disregarding application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code solely on the ground that the suit could not be partly rejected against the present applicants when no application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code was filed by the defendants no. 1 to 6.
"5. On 24.11.2004, the plaintiff-respondent herein filed C.S. No. 115 of 2005 for specific performance of the agreement dated 04.08.2001. The plaintiff- respondent also filed O.A. No. 132 of 2005 in the said suit praying for an interim injunction restraining the defendants from, in any way, dealing with or alienating the suit property pending disposal of the suit. The 1st defendant therein-the Society also filed Application No. 3560 of 2005 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "the Code") praying for rejection of the plaint. On 18.01.2006, the plaintiff-respondent filed Application No.179 of 2006 for amendment of the plaint.
6. The learned single Judge of the High Court rejected the plaint insofar as 1st defendant is concerned and directed that the suit can be proceeded against the 2nd defendant. The applications bearing Nos. O.A.No.132 of 2005 and 179 of 2006 filed by the plaintiff-respondent for interim injunction and amendment of the plaint were also rejected by the learned single Judge.
7. Challenging the said orders, the plaintiff- respondent filed appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court. By impugned order dated 16.08.2011, the Division Bench while dismissing the appeals against the order rejecting the applications for amendment and for interim Page 13 of 15 C/CRA/281/2014 JUDGMENT injunction, allowed the appeal against the rejection of the plaint. Aggrieved by the said judgment insofar as it allowed the appeal against the rejection of the plaint, the appellant-Society (1st defendant) has filed this appeal by way of special leave petition before this Court."
6.2 Apparent it is from reading the ratio of the judgement referred to hereinabove, that such a stand taken by the learned trial court was in accordance with law. That the suit was time barred. The prayers in the suit to set aside the sale deeds of the years 1994 and 1998 without any plausible explanation given would suggest that the suit was time barred in view of the judgement in the case of Dilboo (smt) (Dead) By LRS. And Others (supra) which categorically states that in cases whenever a document is registered, the date of registration becomes the date of deemed knowledge. A party cannot be allowed to extend the period of limitation by merely claiming that he had no knowledge. Reading of the facts in the plaint at hand would suggest that prima facie there was no substantial explanation to suggest as to how and when they had come to know of such transactions before 2013. Apparently, therefore, the suit filed by the respondents no. 1 to 7 against the present applicants who are defendants no. 7, 8, 10 to 12 was time barred in view of the unequivocal proposition of law as laid down by the judgements referred to hereinabove.
7. For the foregoing reasons, order dated 11.08.2014 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Jetpur-Pavi on application below Ex. 17 in Regular Civil Suit No. 3 of 2014 is hereby quashed and set aside. Application Ex. 17 filed under Order 7 Rule 11 by the petitioners is allowed and the trial Page 14 of 15 C/CRA/281/2014 JUDGMENT Court shall proceed with the suit after deleting the applicants before this Court as defendants in the suit. Civil Revision Application is allowed accordingly. Rule is made absolute.
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J) DIVYA Page 15 of 15