Gujarat High Court
Nileshbhai Ratanlal Sheth vs Budhalal Ambalal Gohil on 6 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/447/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 447 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
Yes
==========================================================
NILESHBHAI RATANLAL SHETH & ORS.
Versus
BUDHALAL AMBALAL GOHIL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SP MAJMUDAR(3456) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
SHASHVATA U SHUKLA(8069) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
DECEASED LITIGANT for the Opponent(s) No. 6
DELETED for the Opponent(s) No. 2,3,5
MR MOHMEDSAIF HAKIM(5394) for the Opponent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s) No. 4,7
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Date : 06/10/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
Table of Contents INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................2 ARGUMENTS OF THE DEFENDANT - PETITIONER................................4 ARGUMENTS OF THE PLAINTIFF - RESPONDENT.................................6 ANALYSIS.....................................................................................................8 Illusory Cause of Action.............................................................................8 No cause of action for seeking possession.............................................12 Deemed Knowledge................................................................................13 CONCLUSION.............................................................................................26
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Hakim waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of Respondents. With consent of the parties, matter is taken up for final hearing.
Page 1 of 25 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 00:10:48 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/447/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined INTRODUCTION
2. The present Revision Application is filed challenging the order dated 06.05.2016, passed by 15th (Ad-hoc) Additional Civil Judge, Vadodara below Exhs.14 and 22, filed in Regular Civil Suit No.619 of 2011, whereby the application filed under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('cpc', for short) has been rejected .
3. For the sake of brevity, the parties herein are referred to as per their original status as that of before the trial Court in the suit.
4. The brief facts arising in the present Revision Application are that the Plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No.619 of 2011, on the ground that by forging the signature of the Plaintiff a Sale Deed has been executed on 31.03.1982. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was hospitalised at HSG Hospital on 26.06.1981. This was because the Plaintiff met with an accident and in the accident the right hand fingers of the Plaintiff were injured and two of his fingers had to be amputated.
5. It is further pleaded by the Plaintiff that it was only after the plaintiff received the revenue record on 13.01.2011 that the Plaintiff came to know that by registered Sale Deed, executed on 31.03.1982, plaintiff and defendant no.1 to 3 executed registered Sale Deed in favour of Defendant Nos. 4 and 5.
6. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the purported signature of the Plaintiff in the Sale Deed is fraudulent and concocted and the sign in the Sale Deeds do not bear the signature of the Plaintiff and in view of the said fact that the Plaintiff got the registered documents from Page 2 of 25 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 00:10:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/447/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined the Sub-registrar office on or around 11.02.2011, the present suit is filed to declare that the Plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and a fraudulent Sale Deed has been executed by the Defendants and said Sale Deeds do not bear the sign of the Plaintiff. Moreover, in the said suit, the Plaintiff also sought for vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property from the Defendants.
7. The Defendant appeared in the said suit and filed an application vide Exh.14 under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC on the ground that the suit is hopelessly time barred and the fact that the Plaintiff had executed Sale Deed in favour of Defendant nos.4 and 5 on 31.03.1982 and Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 have executed Sale Deed in favour of Defendant No. 6 on 09.09.1991 and a further Sale Deed has been executed in the year 2004.
8. The fact that the Plaintiff has filed suit challenging the said Sale Deed of the year 1982 in the year 2011, the suit is hopelessly time barred.
9. Trial Court, after taking into consideration the Plaint and the documents annexed along with the Plaint, has rejected the said Applications on the ground that the Plaintiff has stated that he came to know about execution of the Sale Deed only in the year 2011, the application under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 could not be allowed and in view of the said fact, applications under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 were rejected. Hence, the present Revision Application.
Page 3 of 25 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 00:10:48 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/447/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined ARGUMENTS OF THE DEFENDANT - PETITIONER
10. Ld. Advocate for the Defendant has mainly argued that the Sale Deed has been executed on 31.03.1982 and the suit has been filed by the Plaintiff is in the year 2011. Therefore, under the provisions of Article 59 of the Limitation Act, the Plaintiff has to file the suit within a period of three years. It has been argued that from the Plaint and the documents produced with the Plaint, it can be clearly established that on the day when the Sale Deed was executed by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff was neither hospitalised nor there is any document to show that the Plaintiff was incompetent to execute the said Sale Deed.
11. Moreover, the Ld. Advocate has also argued that in the facts of the present case, the Plaintiff has sought for a relief of possession of the suit property. Therefore, the Plaintiff has not stated and given details of the fact as to when the Defendants were put in possession of the property and as to when the Defendant entered the premises and took possession from the Plaintiff and, therefore, the trial Court could not have rejected the said application.
12. It has also been argued that if the Plaint and the relief as sought in the Plaint are taken into consideration, the Plaintiff has not sought any relief to challenge the sale deed that has been executed by Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 in favour of Defendant no.6 on 09.09.1991 and the Sale Deed that has been executed by Defendant no.6 in favour of Defendant nos.7 to 10 on 23.01.2004.
13. Further, the first Sale Deed, dated 31.03.1982 has been mutated in Page 4 of 25 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 00:10:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/447/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined the revenue record on 24.12.1982, by way of revenue Entry No. 2554 and the fact that the sale deed dated 09.09.1991, has been mutated in the revenue record on 22.10.1991, by revenue Entry No.5304 and the third Sale Deed dated 23.01.2004, which has been executed by Defendant no.6 in favour of Defendant nos.7 to 10, has been mutated in the revenue record on 01.10.2004 by revenue Entry No. 8231. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff was not aware of the said transactions.
14. Hence, the suit that has been filed in the year 2011, the Plaintiff has not challenged the Sale Deeds executed by Defendant nos. 4 to 5 in favour of Defendant no.6 and Sale Deed executed by Defendant no.6 in favour of Defendant nos.7 to 10 and, therefore, the suit that has been filed by the Plaintiff is hopelessly time barred and, therefore, the applications filed under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of 'cpc' could not have been rejected by the Trial Court.
15. Learned advocate for the Defendant has relied on judgment reported in 2025 (0) AIJEL - HC - 251103 in the case of Manibhai Asharam Shah vs. Ranchodbhai Cheetabhai Patel (Decd.) Through Legal heirs wherein it has been held that the deemed knowledge will be from the date of registration.
16. Learned advocate for the Defendant has also relied on the judgment reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 372 in the case of Raghwendra Sharan Singh vs. Ram Prasanna Singh on the issue that as the Plaintiff has not challenged the Sale Deed executed by Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 in favour of Defendant no.6 dated 09.09.1991 and the Sale Deed executed by Defendant no.6 in favour of Defendant nos.7 Page 5 of 25 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 00:10:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/447/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined to 10 dated 23.01.2004 and in view of the fact that the said Sale Deed if had been challenged were clearly time barred, the Plaintiff could not have filed the suit and only with an intention of getting the suit within the period of limitation, the Plaintiff has challenged only Sale Deed executed on 31.03.1982.
17. Learned advocate for the Defendant has also relied on the judgment reported in 2022 (0) AIJEL - SC- 69921 in the case of C.S. Ramaswamy vs. V. K. Senthil & Ors. Learned advocate for the Defendant has also relied on the judgment reported 2025 (0) AIJEL - SC - 75007 in the case of Umadevi versus Anand Kumar and the judgment reported in 2025 (0) AIJEL - SC - 75321 in the case of Santosh Devi vs. Sunder.
ARGUMENTS OF THE PLAINTIFF - RESPONDENT
18. Per contra, Ld. Advocate for the Plaintiff has argued that the Plaintiff relies on the fact that, the Sale Deed executed in favour of Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 on 31.03.1982 is not signed by the Plaintiff and the said Sale Deed has been executed on concocted sign and it is a specific case of the Plaintiff that a fraudulent person has been presented before the Sub- registrar stating to be that of the Plaintiff and the Defendant nos.1 to 5 in collusion with each other have concocted the signature of the Plaintiff and the said Sale Deed dated 31.03.1982, has been executed on the basis of that concocted signature.
19. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 taking disadvantage of the fact that the fingers of the right hand of the Plaintiff, were amputated and he was undergoing treatment, bogus Page 6 of 25 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 00:10:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/447/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined fraudulent signature by presenting a third person, Sale Deed dated 31.03.1983 has been executed and the said fact came to the knowledge of the Plaintiff only on 13.01.2011, when the Plaintiff got the certified copies of 7/12 abstracts of the suit property and, therefore, the said suit is filed and the trial court has rightly rejected the said application in view the fact that whether the Sale Deed dated 31.03.1982 bears the signature of the Plaintiff or not is a triable issue and the same can be decided only by leading oral evidence.
20. Moreover, when the Plaintiff has come forward with the case that the said Sale Deed does not bear the signature of the Plaintiff and a fraud has been committed on the Plaintiff and that the Plaintiff came to know about the said fraud only on 13.01.2011, when the Plaintiff got the certified copies from the Sub- registrar office, the period of limitation shall only begin when the Plaintiff discovered the fraud and, therefore, the trial Court has rightly rejected the said application.
21. Learned advocate for the Plaintiff has relied on the judgements reported in (i) 2021 (4) SCC 786 in the case of Deccan Paper Mills Company Limited vs. Regency Mahavir Properties and others, (ii) (2010) 2 scc 194 in the case of Daya Singh and another vs. Gurdev Singh (Dead) by Lrs. And others, (iii) 2018 (6) SCC 422 in the case of Chhotanben v. Kirtibhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar and (iv) 2025 SCC Online SC 975 in the case of P. Kumarakurubaran vs. P. Narayanan and has argued that present Revision Application is required to be rejected.
Page 7 of 25 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 00:10:48 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/447/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined ANALYSIS
22. Having heard learned advocates for the parties, having considered the Plaint and documents annexed with the Plaint, the following facts are required to be considered while deciding the present Civil Revision Application.
i. The Sale Deed in question has been executed on 31.03.1982;
ii. Sale Deed is registered and pursuant to the said registration, the same was mutated in the revenue entry by mutation Entry No.2554 on 24.12.1982;
iii. The said Sale Deed is not only executed by the Plaintiff but the same also bears the signature of other family members of the Plaintiff including his brother; and iv. The fact remains that the other brothers have not challenged the said Sale Deed executed on 31.03.1982.
Illusory Cause of Action
23. While examining a Plaint from the angle of Order VII Rule 11(a) or
(d) (for limitation), the Court is required to see the cause of action, date of knowledge, etc. as pleaded in the Plaint.
24. Naturally, the Plaintiff will have pleaded some or the other cause of action. However, the objective of the Court at that stage is to look through the cause of action pleaded and see whether such cause of action as pleaded is triable, genuine or an illusory one.
25. In Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Asstt. Charity Commr., (2004) 3 SCC 137, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:
Page 8 of 25 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 00:10:48 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/447/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined
11. In I.T.C. Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal [(1998) 2 SCC 70] it was held that the basic question to be decided while dealing with an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code is whether a real cause of action has been set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated with a view to get out of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code.
12. The trial court must remember that if on a meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, it should exercise the power under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it has to be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 of the Code. (See T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal [(1977) 4 SCC 467] .)
26. Therefore, this Court will have to, on a meaningful and entire reading of the Plaint see whether a genuine or illusory cause of action has been pleaded.
27. According to the case of the Plaintiff as pleaded in the Plaint, the entire case revolves around the fact that because of his accident, two fingers of right hand of Plaintiff had to be amputated and therefore, the sale deed could not be executed by him.
28. However, fact which will have to be considered is that even prima facie, the Plaint does not show that as on the date when the Sale Deed was executed, the Plaintiff was hospitalised or the fingers were amputed, nor there is any documentary evidence which supports the fact that the Plaintiff did not have good relation with Page 9 of 25 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 00:10:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/447/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined his brothers so that they did not inform him about the execution of the Sale Deed.
29. Three registered sale deeds have been executed as regards the said property. For a Plaintiff to rise from a deep slumber in 2011 as regards a sale deed registered in 1981 (followed by two subsequent sale deeds registered in 1991 and 2004, all of which entries have also been mutated in the revenue record) by simply saying that there was a fraud in registering the sale deed because the Plaintiff had not signed the same is an illusory cause of action. The averment regarding knowledge of the sale deed only in 2011 without any basis is bereft of any reason or rationale.
30. It is true that a Court exercising powers under Order VII Rule 11 is not required to consider any evidence even prima facie and only on demurrer from the Plaints and Documents annexed with the Plaint, is required to be seen whether any cause of action is disclosed or that the Plaint is barred by any law. However, where the Plaintiff has apparently pleaded an illusory cause of action to get the suit within the period of limitation, at least some document prima facie indicating to a genuine cause of action being disclosed is required. It is not to say that the Plaintiff must lead a full fledged trial at this stage. However, it is also the duty of the Plaintiff to prima facie support the contention of fraud with averments of exactitude and documents of some indication. None of these are present in the present case.
31. If the entire Plaint is taken into consideration, it is not the case of the Plaintiff that before execution of the said Sale Deed, the Plaintiff Page 10 of 25 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 00:10:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/447/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined was in possession of the suit property. Therefore, the entire case revolves around the fact that the Plaintiff is claiming recovery of possession of the suit property from the Defendants and the fact is that it is not the case of the Plaintiff that the Defendants have recently entered into the possession of the suit property and, therefore, the possession of the suit property of the Defendants are pursuant to the Sale Deed executed by the Plaintiff and Defendant nos.1 to 3 on 31.03.1982 and thereafter Defendant no.6, by virtue of Sale Deed dated 09.09.1991 and Defendant nos.7 to 10 by virtue of Sale Deed dated 21.03.2004.
32. Therefore, the fact remains that Plaintiff has purposely and by way of clever drafting not narrated the date on which the possession of the suit property was taken from the Plaintiff. The fact remains that even considering the provisions of Section 17 of the Limitation Act, which states that the Plaintiff can file a suit from the date he discovered the fraud but the fact remains that whether it can be believed that the Plaintiff's possession is taken somewhere in the year 1982 and the Plaintiff woke up from slumber in the year 2011.
33. Therefore, the question that arises is whether the Plaintiff could have reasonably known about the transaction and more particularly about the fact that the possession of the property has been taken away by the Defendant and whether by due diligence, the Plaintiff could have discovered the factum of execution of the transaction. It is impossible to believe that if a person's possession is taken over somewhere in the year 1982, though no date has been stated but from the facts stated in the Plaint, it can be clearly observed that the Page 11 of 25 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 00:10:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/447/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined Plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property since 31.08.1982, i.e., the date when the Sale Deed has been executed and if the possession was taken over, the Plaintiff would have inquired in the revenue records as to how the Defendants are in possession of the property and, therefore, the claim of belated knowledge of the Plaintiff could not be believed.
No cause of action for seeking possession
34. It is pertinent to be noted that the Plaintiff, though having stated that there are subsequent sale deeds in the year 1991 and 2004, has only challenged the sale deed of the year 1981. Therefore, admittedly, the Plaintiff has not sought to challenge the subsequent sale deeds.
35. Whilst it is true that in accordance with the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hussain Ahmed Chaudhary v. Habibur Rehman, 2025 SCC Online SC 892, is that a Plaintiff is not required to seek cancellation of a document which has not been executed by him. However, in the present facts where the possession admittedly is not with the Plaintiff or the Defendant with whom the sale deed of the year 1991 has been entered into, prayer for possession cannot be maintained unless cancellation of the sale- deeds of the year 1991 and year 2004 are sought for.
36. Hence, on this count also, there is a non-disclosure of cause of action of filing the present Suit.
Deemed Knowledge
37. Whenever a document is registered, the date of registration of the document becomes the date of 'deemed knowledge' in view of the Page 12 of 25 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 00:10:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/447/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dilboo (Dead) and ors. vs. Dhanraji (Dead) and Ors. reported in MANU/ SC / 3318 / 2000 wherein it has been held that whenever a document is registered, the date of registration becomes the date of deemed knowledge. In other words where a fact could be discovered by due diligence, then deemed knowledge would be attributed to the Plaintiff because the party cannot be allowed to extend period of limitation by merely claiming that he had no knowledge.
38. In the facts of the case of P. Kumarakurubaran vs. P. Narayanan (supra) including Chhotanben vs. Kirtibhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar (supra), the Hon'ble Court has come to the conclusion that it is not ex facie evident from averments made in the plaint that the plaintiff has knowledge of registration of the sale-deed.
39. 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 Page 13 of 25 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 00:10:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/447/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined 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 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 Page 14 of 25 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 00:10:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/447/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined memorandum 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 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 Page 15 of 25 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 00:10:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/447/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined 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 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..."
40. This principle is recently elaborated by the Hon'ble Supreme Page 16 of 25 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 00:10:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/447/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined 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 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 Page 17 of 25 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 00:10:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/447/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined 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."
41. Even coordinate bench of this Court in several judgments has adopted the 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 Page 18 of 25 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 00:10:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/447/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined 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 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 Page 19 of 25 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 00:10:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/447/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined prayer."
42. The judgment relied on by the learned advocate for the Plaintiff in the case of Deccan Paper Mills Company Limited vs. Regency Mahavir Properties and others (supra) wherein the Court was considering that when it comes to cancellation of deed by executant to the document such person can approach the Court under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act but when it comes to cancellation of deed by non- executant, he must approach under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act and the cancellation of the sale-deed by non-executant would be an action in personnel since the suit has to be filed under Section 34. The said judgment will not be applicable to the facts of the present case in view of the fact that the plaintiff has not given any details of fraud that has been committed on the plaintiff and the only fact on which the plaintiff has come forward is a case that the plaintiff was not aware of execution of the said sale-deed. The fact also is required to be considered that before the suit is filed there are other sale-deeds also executed in the year 1991 and 2004 and pursuant to the said sale-deeds, mutation entries have also been entered in the revenue record and, therefore, it cannot be said that plaintiff was not required to challenge the said sale-deeds. The facts of the present case are altogether different wherein the Plaintiff having alleged to have been executed a Sale Deed in the year 1982, has filed a suit in the year 2011 that the said Sale Deed does not bear the signature and in the said suit has also sought for possession of the suit property and has not stated anything that when the Defendants have illegally dispossessed the Plaintiff from the suit premises.
Page 20 of 25 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 00:10:48 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/447/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined
43. The other judgment on which learned advocate for the Plaintiff has relied on is in the case of Daya Singh and another vs. Gurdev Singh (Dead) by Lrs. And others (supra) will not be applicable to the facts of the present case, in view the fact that in the said case there were only adverse entry in revenue record and in the present case, as stated hereinabove, there is a Sale Deed which has been executed by the Plaintiff.
44. In view of the said facts, present suit having challenged the Sale Deed executed in the year 1982, by filing a suit in the year 2011 is hopelessly time barred. This Court has also taken into consideration the fact that the Plaintiff has come forward with the case that the signatory to the said Sale Deed is not the Plaintiff but the fact will also have to be considered that in the said suit, it is not the case of the Plaintiff that he is in possession of the property. It is neither the case of the Plaintiff that he has been illegally dispossesed of the suit premises and the very fact that the Plaintiff is seeking for recovery of possession of the premises clearly states that the Defendants came in possession of the property at the time, when the Sale Deed was executed in the year 1982 and, therefore, by clever drafting the present suit is filed on an illusionary cause of action to state that the said Sale Deed does not bear the signature of the Plaintiff and, therefore, the Plaint that has been filed is hopelessly time and the Plaint is required to be rejected under the provision of Order VII Rule 11 of the 'cpc'.
45. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down principles where the Court must see through the clever drafting in order to come at the conclusion of whether the Plaint is a result of an illusory cause of action or a triable one.
Page 21 of 25 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 00:10:48 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/447/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined
46. Hon'ble Apex Court further in Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali, (2020) 7 SCC 366 has explained the scope of the powers under Order VII Rule 11 in detail after considering several judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court:
"23.3. The underlying object of Order 7 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.
23.4 In Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi [Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, 1986 Supp SCC 315. Followed in Manvendrasinhji Ranjitsinhji Jadeja v. Vijaykunverba, 1998 SCC OnLine Guj 281 : (1998) 2 GLH 823] this Court held that the whole purpose of conferment of powers under this provision is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless, and bound to prove abortive, should not be permitted to waste judicial time of the court, in the following words : (SCC p. 324, para 12) "12. ... The whole purpose of conferment of such powers is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless, and bound to prove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time of the court, and exercise the mind of the Respondent. The sword of Damocles need not be kept hanging over his head unnecessarily without point or purpose. Even in an ordinary civil litigation, the court readily exercises the power to reject a Plaint, if it does not disclose any cause of action."Page 22 of 25 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 00:10:48 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/447/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined 23.5 The power conferred on the court to terminate a civil action is, however, a drastic one, and the conditions enumerated in Order 7 Rule 11 are required to be strictly adhered to.
23.6 Under Order 7 Rule 11, a duty is cast on the court to determine whether the Plaint discloses a cause of action by scrutinising the averments in the Plaint [Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I, (2004) 9 SCC 512] , read in conjunction with the documents relied upon, or whether the suit is barred by any law.
23.8 Having regard to Order 7 Rule 14 CPC, the documents filed along with the Plaint, are required to be taken into consideration for deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11(a). When a document referred to in the Plaint, forms the basis of the Plaint, it should be treated as a part of the Plaint.
23.9 In exercise of power under this provision, the court would determine if the assertions made in the Plaint are contrary to statutory law, or judicial dicta, for deciding whether a case for rejecting the Plaint at the threshold is made out.
23.11. The test for exercising the power under Order 7 Rule 11 is that if the averments made in the Plaint are taken in entirety, in conjunction with the documents relied upon, would the same result in a decree being passed. This test was laid down in Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I [Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I, (2004) 9 SCC 512] which reads as : (SCC p. 562, para 139) "139. Whether a Plaint discloses a cause of action or not is essentially a question of fact. But whether it does or does not must be found out from reading the Plaint itself. For the said purpose, the averments made in the Plaint in their entirety must be held to be correct. The test is as to whether if the averments made in the Plaint are taken to be correct in their entirety, a decree would Page 23 of 25 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 00:10:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/447/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined be passed."
23.13. If on a meaningful reading of the Plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly vexatious and without any merit, and does not disclose a right to sue, the court would be justified in exercising the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
23.15. The provision of Order 7 Rule 11 is mandatory in nature. It states that the Plaint "shall" be rejected if any of the grounds specified in clauses (a) to (e) are made out. If the court finds that the Plaint does not disclose a cause of action, or that the suit is barred by any law, the court has no option, but to reject the Plaint.
24.4. If, however, by clever drafting of the Plaint, it has created the illusion of a cause of action, this Court in Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal [Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal, (2017) 13 SCC 174 : (2017) 5 SCC (Civ) 602] held that it should be nipped in the bud, so that bogus litigation will end at the earliest stage. The Court must be vigilant against any camouflage or suppression, and determine whether the litigation is utterly vexatious, and an abuse of the process of the court.
CONCLUSION
47. Hence, in essence, if the Court is of the opinion that (i) no actual cause of action exists and the one pleaded is merely illusory or (ii) there is suppression, camouflage in a litigation that is utterly vexatious and abuse of process of law or (iii) taking all averments of the Plaint in its entirety to be true, no decree can be passed or (iv) assertions made in the Plaint are contrary to judicial dicta or law, etc. the Plaint ought to be rejected. It is pertinent to be noted here that upon arriving at such finding or conclusion, rejection of the Plaint is not discretionary but in fact, is Page 24 of 25 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 00:10:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/447/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined mandatory.
48 In view of the foregoing, it is clear that the present Plaint is barred by limitation and a cause of action which has been pleaded is a merely illusory one.
49. Hence, the present Plaint is required to be rejected under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11.
50. Consequently, the present Civil Revision Application deserves to be allowed and it is allowed accordingly. The Plaint in Regular Civil Suit No. 619 of 2011 is hereby rejected. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J) MISHRA AMIT V. Page 25 of 25 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 00:10:48 IST 2025