Gujarat High Court
Jagdishbhai Haribhai Patel Through Poa ... vs Lh Of Decd. Ramanlal Shankarlal Patel on 2 September, 2025
Author: Sangeeta K. Vishen
Bench: Sangeeta K. Vishen
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2541/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2541 of 2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2024
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2541 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
JAGDISHBHAI HARIBHAI PATEL THROUGH POA SHAH RAJESHKUMAR
CHANDRAVADAN
Versus
LH OF DECD. RAMANLAL SHANKARLAL PATEL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ANSHIN H DESAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR PARV MEHTA FOR
MR SATYAM Y CHHAYA(3242) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR DHAVAL D VYAS, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR ADITYA D
JOSHI(12363) for the Defendant(s) No. 8.2
MR MG NAGARKAR(496) for the Defendant(s) No. 2.2
MR TARAK DAMANI(6089) for the Defendant(s) No. 3,4,5,6,7
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 10,11,1.1,2.1,8.1,9
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 02/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN) Captioned appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10.04.2023 (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned judgment") passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge & Additional Page 1 of 29 Uploaded by BINOY B PILLAI(HC00183) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 00:21:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2541/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara below Exh.11 in Special Civil Suit no.184 of 2022 (hereinafter referred to as "the suit"). For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status in the suit.
2. The plaintiff - appellant had filed the suit, inter alia, praying for declaration, declaring the plaintiff as the owner and in possession and the defendants having no right, title or interest over the land bearing survey no.385 admeasuring 9510 sq. mtrs. (hereinafter referred to as "the land in question"). Further challenge is to the registered sale deed dated 20.06.2006 executed by the defendant nos.1 and 2 in favour of the defendant nos.6 and 7. Challenge is also to the registered sale deed dated 06.05.2015 executed by the ancestors of defendant nos.3 to 5 in favour of defendant nos.6 and 7. The plaintiff has also challenged the registered sale deed dated 15.04.2021 executed by the defendant nos.3 to 5 and defendant nos.6 and 7 in favour of the defendant no.8 with a consequential prayer, seeking direction that the defendants may not create any impediment to the plaintiff for peaceful enjoyment of the land in question.
2.1 The defendant nos.3 to 7 preferred an application under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") raising the ground of absence of cause of action to the plaintiff. Narrating the past events and the transactions and citing the provisions of Articles 56, 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1963"), it is urged that the cause of action, arose to the plaintiff in the year 1990 and having not taken any action, the suit filed in the year 2022, is barred by limitation. Accepting the application vide Page 2 of 29 Uploaded by BINOY B PILLAI(HC00183) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 00:21:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2541/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined impugned judgment, the plaint is rejected. Being aggrieved, that the captioned appeal.
3. Mr Anshin H. Desai, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr Parv Mehta, learned advocate for Mr Satyam Y. Chhaya, learned advocate for the appellant - plaintiff submitted that while considering the application Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, only the plaint and the documents together with the plaint can be seen and considered; however, in the case on hand, the observations made in the impugned judgment, clearly suggest that the learned Judge has considered the documents produced by the defendants and travelled beyond the plaint and the documents, which exercise is impermissible in law.
3.1 It is further submitted that on 11.04.1979, a purported Will was executed in favour of Shri Lalitchandra Motilal Patel, Shri Jivanlal Motilal Patel and Shri Ramanlal Shankarlal Patel whereby, the land admeasuring 4755 sq. mtrs. located on the northern side of land in question was granted in favour of Lalitchandra Motilal Patel; while another 4755 sq. mtrs. on the southern side was given to Jivanlal Motilal Patel and Ramanlal Shankarlal Patel. It is submitted that apropos the Will, entry no.3497 dated 08.11.1987, was posted in the revenue record and was certified on 10.12.1987. Entry no.3497, was subject matter of challenge before the Deputy Collector who, cancelled it, and the order was unsuccessfully challenged before the Collector and thereafter, before the learned Special Secretary, Revenue Department.
3.2 It is further submitted that the Regular Civil Suit no.97 of 1994 was preferred against the order of the revenue authorities which was allowed by judgment dated 29.03.2006 and orders of the Page 3 of 29 Uploaded by BINOY B PILLAI(HC00183) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 00:21:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2541/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined revenue authorities, were quashed and set aside. Regular Civil Appeal no.79 of 2006 was preferred against the judgment and it was decided only on 11.07.2019. The proceedings in connection with entry no.3497, got crystalized, which gave cause to the plaintiff to file the suit. It is submitted that in the interregnum, i.e. from 29.03.2006 till the appeal was preferred, the sale deed dated 19.06.2006 was executed for one parcel of land. It is further submitted that during the pendency of the suit proceedings, injunction was in operation, and in the teeth of injunction, second registered sale deed came to be executed on 06.05.2015 in favour of defendant nos.6 and 7. Therefore, it is a no transaction in the eye of law. Considering the limitation from 2019, the suit, is within the limitation and cannot be said to be barred by law. It is further submitted that an Application no.47 of 1988 seeking probate was filed, which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 02.02.1993; however, no steps have been taken for its restoration and therefore, there are no proceedings of probate pending.
3.3 It is submitted that there is no quarrel to the proposition that the cause of action is a bundle of facts which would consist of all the essential facts and in the case on hand, when there were sale deeds in succession, that is, one in the year 2006, another in the year 2015, and lastly in the year 2021, it would be incorrect to say that no cause of action was available. Moreover, the trial Court while considering the cause of action, relied upon the documents produced by the defendants, which would be impermissible and therefore, the findings are tainted with perversity and deserves to be interfered with.
3.4 Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the
Page 4 of 29
Uploaded by BINOY B PILLAI(HC00183) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 00:21:43 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2541/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025
undefined
case of Prem Kishore & Anr. vs. Brahm Prakash & Ors. reported in (2023) 19 SCC 244. It has been held and observed that the plaint shall be rejected where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. In order to decide whether the suit is barred by any law, only the statement in the plaint, will have to be construed. The Court must have due regard only to the statements in the plaint and while deciding such an application, it is not open to decide the issue on the basis of any other material including the written statement. It is therefore, submitted that only and only the plaint can be looked into for deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code.
3.5 While inviting the attention of this Court to the impugned judgment, it is submitted that what weighed with the learned Judge was the fact that the plaintiff did not disclose the aspect of the proceeding before the Mamlatdar under the provisions of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1948"). The learned Judge took note of the documents produced by the defendants and the findings are based on those documents; therefore, the learned Judge has exceeded the jurisdiction, rendering the judgment illegal, and it deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4. Mr Dhaval D. Vyas, learned Senior Advocate with Mr Aditya D. Joshi, learned advocate for the defendant no.8.2 while vehemently opposing the appeal, submitted that when a party approaches the Court seeking relief, it is incumbent upon him/her to set out all the facts in connection with or in furtherance of the prayers prayed for; however, the plaintiff has chosen not to disclose full, accurate and correct information. It is submitted that the facts which were Page 5 of 29 Uploaded by BINOY B PILLAI(HC00183) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 00:21:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2541/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined adverse to the plaintiff, are not disclosed and placed on record, making a selective reference of the proceedings. It is further submitted that those proceedings and the documents, clearly suggest that the plaintiff had sufficient knowledge. Not only that, the plaintiff himself had participated in the proceedings.
4.1 It is next submitted that Will was executed on 11.04.1979 and thus, the plaintiff knew about the transfer in favour of the defendants. Therefore, cause arose to the plaintiff back then in the year 1979, however, the plaintiff did not take any steps. If not in the year 1979, then in the year 1987 the plaintiff could have taken steps, when the entry no.3497 was posted in the revenue record especially when the challenge was made to the entries before the Deputy Collector, Collector and the Special Secretary, Revenue Department. In the year 1990, the plaintiff challenged the entry before the Deputy Collector and hence, the factum of execution of the Will was known to him. It is submitted that having agreed for the mutation of the entry, and having challenged it before the revenue authorities, it would be too late in the day for the plaintiff to contend that it is only when the issue in connection with the entry no.3497 got crystalized that the cause had arisen to the plaintiff to file the suit. It is submitted that in this background, if one considers the prayers, the plaint is clearly barred by law of limitation.
4.2 It is submitted that the principal relief in the plaint is seeking declaration, that the plaintiff be declared as the owner of the land in question and the defendants not having any right. It is submitted that the Will was executed in the year 1979 divesting the plaintiff of his ownership, even so, the plaintiff did not take any steps, and hence, the first prayer of the plaintiff fails on the very ground and if Page 6 of 29 Uploaded by BINOY B PILLAI(HC00183) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 00:21:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2541/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined the first prayer fails, the challenge to the subsequent sale deeds of the years 2006, 2015 and 2021 also goes. It is further submitted that the latter portion of the first prayer relates to the Will and the period prescribed, is 3 years. Article 58 relates to obtaining any declaration and period of three years' is provided from the date when the right to sue first accrues. Therefore, the period of three years got over, around two decades back. While reiterating, it is submitted that the right to sue first accrued when the Will was executed or when the statements were given before the Mamlatdar at the time of the mutation of the entry no.3497 and thereafter, in the year 1990, when the entry was challenged. It is further submitted that the latter challenge to the sale deed, therefore, would be inconsequential.
4.3 While inviting the attention of this Court to the order of the Deputy Collector, it is submitted that the sale deed which was executed in the year 2006, entry no.8725 was posted in the revenue record; similarly, entry no.10521 was mutated in the revenue record on 28.09.2016, which was challenged by the plaintiff in the year 2016 and the limitation if is counted from the year 2016, the suit filed was beyond the period of three years on this count as well.
4.4 Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rajeev Gupta vs. Prashant Garg reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 881. It is held and observed that Articles 58 and 59 of the Act of 1963 will have the same effect. The word "first" in Article 59 would ordinarily have the same connotation as in Article 58. Therefore, it is submitted that the period of limitation provided in Articles 58 and 59 being three years, from the date the right to sue first accrued, clearly, the suit, is barred by limitation.
Page 7 of 29 Uploaded by BINOY B PILLAI(HC00183) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 00:21:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2541/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined 4.5 It is next submitted that the filing of the present suit, is
nothing, but abuse of process of law considering the fact that the plaintiff, had suppressed the tenancy proceedings initiated and decided against him. The plaintiff who had not come with the clean hands and suppressed the facts, cannot be heard to say that the facts which may have the direct bearing on the limitation, though suppressed, are required to be ignored. It directly hits the concept of purity and obligation of the plaintiff to set out the correct facts with accurate details and not to hold back the facts, which otherwise go to the root of the matter. It is therefore, urged that the appeal may not be entertained and deserves to be dismissed.
5. Mr Tarak Damani, learned advocate with Ms Yatri Patel, learned advocate for the defendant nos.3 to 7 has made submissions along the lines of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the defendant no.8.2. It is submitted that the suit is clearly barred by law of limitation. It is the bounden duty rather obligation on the part of the plaintiff to produce all the documents forming part of the proceedings that were filed between the parties before the different fora relating to the land in question. It is submitted that the proceedings in connection with the mutation entry no.3497, rested at the stage of the Special Secretary, Revenue Department who, remanded the matter to the Mamlatdar with a direction to determine the eligibility of the defendants, who in turn, on 04.08.2004, after considering the documents, dropped the proceedings under the provisions of section 84C of the Act of 1948. The said order was subject matter of challenge before the Deputy Collector who, on 20.06.2006, did not entertain the application which thereafter, was subject matter of challenge before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"). Even Page 8 of 29 Uploaded by BINOY B PILLAI(HC00183) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 00:21:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2541/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined the Tribunal, did not entertain the application, against which, writ petition being Special Civil Application no.700 of 2018 was filed before this Court which, was permitted to be withdrawn vide order dated 08.01.2021 and hence, the judgment of the Tribunal, stood confirmed. The plaintiff only with a view to coming out of the issue of limitation, has produced the favourable documents and held back the documents, which were adverse to him. This aspect, needs to be viewed seriously inasmuch as, it would be impermissible for any party not disclose the documents which otherwise, go to the root of the matter.
5.1 It is submitted that it is by now well-settled that if there is a suppression by the plaintiff, the documents produced by the defendants can be looked into. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Rajhans Infracon (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Santosh Rameshbhai Rathod reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Guj. 7131. It is submitted that it has been held and observed that the plaint would not be saved by clever drafting, therefore, pleading of all the facts and production of the relevant documents which may be in the knowledge and information of the plaintiff is an obligation cast upon it and it is not the matter of choice of the plaintiff. The Court, therefore, may be justified in comprehending such concealed facts and documents, when brought to its notice, for an order under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code and in such an eventuality the plaintiff cannot accuse the Court of being unfair to him. Reliance is also placed on the judgment in the case of Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali reported in (2020) 7 SCC 366. While discussing the previous judgments, it has been held and observed that under Order VII Rule 11, a duty is cast upon the Court to determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action, by scrutinizing the Page 9 of 29 Uploaded by BINOY B PILLAI(HC00183) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 00:21:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2541/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined averments in the plaint, read in conjunction with the documents relied upon or whether the suit is barred by any law. The Apex Court has further observed that if by clever drafting of the plaint it has created an illusion of the cause of action, it should be nipped in the bud so that bogus litigation, will end at the earliest. It has also been observed that 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.
5.2 It is submitted that the case on hand, is a glaring example of abuse of process of Court inasmuch as, the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts and chose to place on record only the documents favourable to him. Even otherwise, the documents and the averments in the plaint, clearly suggest that the suit is barred by limitation inasmuch as, the Will was executed on 11.04.1979 and the plaintiff did not take any steps and filed a suit only in the year 2022. The excuse offered is that the suit could not be filed as the proceedings in connection with the mutation entry no.3497, were pending before different revenue authorities for all these years, and it was only on 11.07.2019, got crystalized and steps were taken. Such a stand, is to be rejected at the threshold. It is further submitted that there was no bar or any impediment for the plaintiff to have not filed or challenged the sale deeds. Having not done so, it would be impermissible for the plaintiff now to raise a contention regarding the pendency of the proceedings all throughout. Even otherwise, the suit is filed after three decades which, would directly hit by the provisions of the Act of 1963.
6. Mr Anshin H. Desai, learned Senior Advocate in the brief rejoinder, reiterated that the appeal was allowed only on 11.07.2019 Page 10 of 29 Uploaded by BINOY B PILLAI(HC00183) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 00:21:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2541/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined and the right to sue accrued only upon the suit having been decided. It is submitted that the additional affidavit and the documents together with the additional affidavit, cannot be looked into in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Prem Kishore vs. Brahm Prakash (supra).
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. Perused and considered the documents and paper-books made available on the record.
8. Briefly stated are the facts, that are culled out from the plaint and the documents together with the plaint.
9. The issue, revolves around the land bearing survey no.385 admeasuring 9510 sq. mtrs., which was of the ownership and possession of Haribhai Kashibhai Patel who executed a Will dated 11.04.1979, and as per the Will, the land admeasuring 4755 sq. mtrs. on the northern side was given to one Lalitchandra Motilal Patel and another 4755 sq. mtrs. on the southern side, was given in favour of Jivanlal Motilal Patel and Ramanlal Shankarlal Patel. The remaining properties, namely, survey nos.281 and 262 admeasuring 8207 sq. mtrs. were distributed equally in favour of his children. It be noted that one of the defendants and the brother of the plaintiff, had signed the Will as a witness.
10. Haribhai Kashibhai Patel passed away on 09.09.1979 and consequently, heirship entry no.2551 dated 24.12.1982 was posted in the revenue record with respect to the land in question, survey nos.281 and 262. Thereafter, entry no.3497 dated 08.11.1987 was posted recording the factum of the Will. Said entry, was certified by the Mamlatdar after recording the statements of the heirs of Page 11 of 29 Uploaded by BINOY B PILLAI(HC00183) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 00:21:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2541/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined Haribhai Kashibhai Patel. After the certification, in the 7/12 forms for the period, i.e. from the years 1990 to 1993-1994, names of Lalitchandra Motilal Patel, Jivanlal Motilal Patel and Ramanlal Shankarlal Patel were reflected and discontinued owing to the revenue proceedings as discussed hereinafter. So, for almost 4 years, the names of the above-referred parties continued in the revenue record.
11. Discernibly, the entry no.3497 was challenged by the plaintiff before the Deputy Collector in the year 1990, that is, after almost three years and was registered as R.T.S. appeal no.135 of 1990 on the ground that the respondents therein surreptitiously and illegally got the entry posted in the revenue record on the basis of so called Will. Stand was also taken that the Will was unregistered and entry had been posted after eight years. Besides, the parties in whose favour the Will was executed were not possessing any agricultural lands. The appeal was allowed vide order dated 03.08.1992. Entry no.5596 was posted, recording the factum of the order passed by the Deputy Collector and the cancellation of the entry no.3497. It is thereafter that the appeal was preferred by Patel Lalitchandra Motilal, Patel Jivanlal Motilal and Patel Ramanlal Shankarlal before the Collector and was dismissed by order dated 17.01.1994, which was subject matter of challenge before the Special Secretary, Revenue Department who, by order dated 25.03.2003 partly allowed the appeal. Vide entry no.11040 the aspect of the order dated 25.03.2003 passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department was posted in the revenue record and was certified on 18.10.2019. By virtue of the said order, the matter was remanded to the Mamlatdar to inquire into the legality and validity of the transaction entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant Page 12 of 29 Uploaded by BINOY B PILLAI(HC00183) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 00:21:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2541/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined nos.1 to 5.
12. The Mamlatdar & ALT had passed an order dated 04.08.2004 and the proceeding was dropped of which the entry no. 8270 dated 03.10.2004 was posted in the revenue record. Thereafter, the plaintiff and other being aggrieved, had preferred an appeal before the Deputy Collector who, by passing the order dated 20.06.2006, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order dated 04.08.2004 passed by the Mamlatdar. Corresponding entry no. 8704 was posted in the revenue record on 28.07.2006 and was certified on 30.08.2006. It is also not in dispute that the revision application was preferred before the Tribunal challenging the orders dated 04.08.2004 passed by the Mamlatdar as well as 20.06.2006 passed by the Deputy Collector, which was dismissed by the tribunal by passing an order dated 28.03.2017 and thereby, the order of the Mamlatdar dated 04.08.2004 and the order of the Deputy Collector dated 20.06.2006, were confirmed. Corresponding entry no. 10178 was posted in the revenue record on 05.06.2017 and was certified on 05.07.2017.
13. Adverting to the proceedings arising out of Regular Civil Suit no.97 of 1994, it is pertinent to note that the suit, came to be allowed by passing order dated 29.03.2006 whereby, the order passed by the Deputy Collector in R.T.S. Appeal no.135 of 1990 as well as the order passed by the Collector dated 17.01.1994 as well as the order of the Mamlatdar passed in lavad case, were declared as illegal and null and void. In the interregnum the sale deed dated 19.06.2006 was executed by Shri Jivanlal Motilal Patel and Shri Ramanlal Shankarlal Patel in favour of defendant nos.6 and 7 for 4755 sq. mtrs. of land. Subsequent thereto, appeal was preferred by Page 13 of 29 Uploaded by BINOY B PILLAI(HC00183) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 00:21:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2541/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined the plaintiff on 01.06.2006 which, came to be decided by passing order dated 11.07.2019. Against the said judgment the defendants, had preferred Second Appeal no.328 of 2019 before this Court and this Court, did not interfere with as there was no substantial question of law involved.
14. It is thereafter the plaintiff had filed the suit, inter alia, praying for various reliefs. Declaration is sought that the plaintiff be declared as the owner and in possession of the land in question. Further direction has been prayed for declaring the respondent not having any right over the land in question. Besides the said prayer, the plaintiff has challenged the sale deed dated 20.06.2006; the sale deed dated 06.05.2015; rectification deed dated 13.08.2015; and the sale deed dated 15.04.2021 executed for whole of the land in question in favour of respondent no.8.
15. The learned Counsel for the appellant has essentially raised the contention that the documents produced by the defendants could not have been gone into or looked into while deciding the application Order VII Rule 11 of the Code; whereas the stand taken by the learned Counsels appearing for the defendants is that when there is suppression of material fact and which goes to the root of the matter, such documents even while deciding the application Order VII Rule 11 of the Code can be looked into.
16. It is not in dispute that the principal prayer of the plaintiffs is seeking ownership of the land in question. As discussed hereinabove, the Will was executed on 11.04.1979 of which the entry was posted in the revenue record on 08.11.1987. In the interregnum after the death of the father of the plaintiff on 09.09.1979, heirship entry no.2551 was posted in the revenue Page 14 of 29 Uploaded by BINOY B PILLAI(HC00183) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 00:21:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2541/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined record and was certified on 27.01.1983. It is thereafter entry no. 3497 was posted on 08.11.1987. Plain reading of the entry and the endorsement in the last column suggests that the entry was certified after recording the statement of the heirs. Therefore, the transfer by way of Will was known to the plaintiffs as far back as the year 1987. This implies that the plaintiff and his brothers were aware of the transfer in favour of Patel Lalitchandra Motilal, Patel Jivanlal Motilal and Patel Ramanlal Shankarlal of the lands in question. Therefore, the right to sue accrued to the plaintiff in the year 1987. It is also not in dispute that the said entry was a subject matter of challenge before the Deputy Collector. The principal ground raised in the appeal was that the persons in whose favour the Will was executed were neither the agriculturists nor in possession of agricultural lands and that the transfer was in violation of section 63 of the Act of 1948. It was not the case of the plaintiff or his family members that entry was posted without any notice to them.
17. The Deputy Collector cancelled the entry in the year 1992 against which, the proceedings travelled upto the level of Secretary, Revenue Department who, by passing an order dated 26.03.2003, partly allowed the revision and observed that in the proceedings of mutation entries, the Collector and the Mamlatdar cannot look into the breaches of the provisions of other enactment. The matter was remitted to the Mamlatdar & ALT to look into the breach of the provisions of the Act of 1948. Upon remand of the proceedings, the Mamlatdar & ALT had passed the order dated 04.08.2004, withdrawing the notice. The Deputy Collector did not entertain the appeal of the plaintiff and the corresponding entry no.8704 dated 28.07.2006 was posted in the revenue record and was certified on Page 15 of 29 Uploaded by BINOY B PILLAI(HC00183) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 00:21:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2541/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined 03.08.2006. Further proceedings before the Tribunal culminated into passing of the order dated 28.03.2017 and both the above-referred orders dated 20.06.2006 of the Deputy Collector and 04.08.2004 of the Mamlatdar & ALT were confirmed which aspect, is clear from the entry no.10719 dated 07.06.2017.
18. Simultaneously, the proceedings were taken out by the defendants - Patel Lalitchandra Motilal, Patel Jivanlal Motilal and Patel Ramanlal Shankarlal by preferring the Regular Civil Suit no.97 of 1994 wherein following issues were formulated:-
"(1) Whether plaintiffs prove that the disputed property belonged to the deceased Haribhai Kashibhai Patel and it was his own and independent property?
(2) Whether plaintiffs prove that the deceased had executed a Will dated 11.4.1979 of his properties in favour of plaintiff No.1 to 3?
(3) Whether plaintiffs prove that he is the owner & in possession of the disputed property by the Will?
(4) Whether plaintiffs prove that the order of the Collector, Vadodara in R.T.R.S./R.A./58/93 is illegal?
(5) Whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this case?
(6) Whether plaintiff suit is maintainable at law?
(6A) Whether defendants No.1 to 4 prove that the plaintiffs, though non-agriculturist, have got a Will for agricultural land to defeat the object of prohibition to purchase agricultural land by non-agriculturist under the Tenancy Act as contended in their W.S.?
(6B) Whether defendants No. to 4 prove chat the deceased Haribhai due to his old age was ceased to be a Manager of H.U.f. properties since from the year 1979?
(7) Whether plaintiffs are entitled for the relief as
Page 16 of 29
Uploaded by BINOY B PILLAI(HC00183) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 00:21:43 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2541/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025
undefined
mentioned in para-14(a) & (b) of the plaint?
(8) Whether plaintiffs are entitled for any other reliefs?
(9) What order & decree?"
Discernibly, issue no.3 was touching the status of the plaintiff as owners and also of possession of the land in question. Issue nos.4 and 5 were touching the legality and validity of the order passed by the Deputy Collector dated 02.08.1992. Vide judgment dated 29.03.2006, the suit came to be decided. Paragraphs 9, 10 by which the issue no.3 was decided, are set out hereinbelow for ready reference:-
9. Issue No.3:
Burden to prove this issue lies on the plaintiff. Looking to the pleadings and arguments of both the sides, as per the case of the plaintiff, they are in possession and occupation of the suit property. Now, the plaintiff's witness, Shri Lalitbhai Motilal Patel has deposed vide Exh.121 that, wherein, he relied on the documentary evidence, Exh.124, 125 and 126 and further deposed that, as per these documents, the land bearing R.S.No.385 is in possession and occupation of the plaintiffs. Now, looking to Exh.126 which is a Village Form No. 6. Records of rights of Village Sama,Ta. Dist. Vadodara, wherein the entry No.3497 is made in the name of the plaintiffs, wherein, it is mentioned that, the name of the plaintiffs were mutated by virtue of will executed by deceased Haribhai Kashibhai and the same were mutated with consent of the defendant No.1 to 4 who becomes the legal heirs of deceased Haribhai Kashibhai. He further deposed that, the plaintiffs are paying the revenue pertaining to the suit property agricultural land and he relied on the revenue receipts Exh.127 to 130. He further deposed that, the plaintiffs are in possession and occupation of the suit land and they are paying the revenue pertaining to the suit Land and even the entry in the revenue records of village Form No.7/12 were mutated in the name of the plaintiffs. He further argued that it is not the case of the defendants that the plaintiff are in possession of the suit land as trespassers and there is no complaint filed by the defendants' side that the possession was snatched away by the plaintiffs. So, since quite a long time, the plaintiff are in possession of the suit land. So, it is proved by the plaintiffs that, by virtue of will executed by deceased Haribhai Kashibhai the suit land was mutated in the name of the plaintiffs vide Entry No.3497 and they become the owner and occupier of the suit land. It is further argued from the plaintiffs' side that, the defendant No.1 to 4 have preferred an appeal No.135/1990 Page 17 of 29 Uploaded by BINOY B PILLAI(HC00183) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 00:21:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2541/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined against the Entry No.3427 and in that appeal the order was passed against the plaintiffs, and by aggrieving with that order, the plaintiffs have preferred an R.T.S Appeal No.58/93 before the Collector, Vadodara, and the said appeal is produced vide Exh.131 wherein, the order was passed to cancel the entry No.3497, and against the order passed by the Collector, Vadodara, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs. So, as per the procedure of Land Revenue Code, notice u/s.135/D was also served to the concerned parties. So, it is an admitted fact that the entry No.3497 made in the revenue records with consent of the defendant Nos.1 to 4. It is further argued that, the will executed by deceased Haribhai Kashibhai was not challenged by the defendant's side, and as per the Indian Succession Act, in the Gujarat, there is no need to get the probate certificate of the will, and as per this procedure and evidence, the Ld. Advocate for the plaintiffs argued out that, the plaintiff has proved his possession over the suit land, and when the Entry No.3497 is confirmed by the Secretary. So, this entry could not be changed by the Mamlatdar, Vadodara. So, as per this situation order of changing the entry No.3497 is illegal and null and void ab initio. So, the plaintiff proves that he is the owner and in possession of the disputed property by the will. So, my reply to Issue No.3 is in afffirmative.
10. Issue No.4:
Burden to prove this issue lies on the plaintiffs. As per the arguments advanced by both the sides, the facts relied upon by the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs argued that, as per the Indian Succession Act, there is no need to obtain the probate certificate of the will in Gujarat and it is also admitted fact that the said will is produced by the plaintiffs, but it was not exhibited and the same is not proved by the plaintiff. But, as per the say of the plaintiffs the will is not a deed in Gujarat for obtaining the Probate Certificate. The possession of the disputed property is with the plaintiffs and there is a limited power vested to the Dy. Collector and Collector for changing the entry, because, as per the arguments of the plaintiff's side, as per the order of the Secretary in R.T.S. Appeal No.135/1990 and R.T.S./RA/58/93, the order of the Mamlatdar and Lavad Case No.30/90 is illegal and not serviceable. So, there is no power vested to the Mamlatdar to cancel the entry No.3497. The Ld. Advocate for the plaintiffs relied on the judgment reported in 1985(1) GLR 139, wherein, the Hon'ble High Court has held that, "It is thus evident that provisions of sub-section (3) of section 135-H of the Code leave no doubt that an entry in the record of rights has only a presumptive value, and it does not decide the rights of the parties finally, and whenever there is a dispute regarding the right, it is the Civil Court which has to decide the same finally, and the Collector has been enjoined with a duty to correct the entry in the record of rights in accordance with the decision of the Civil Court of the High Court. In other words, the Civil Court is only a statutory authority which can adjudicate and finally decide the rights of the parties, and the revenue authority is enjoined to correct the entries in the record of rights in accordance with the decision of the Civil Court." So, as per the controversy raised by the defendants' side that, the Entry No.3497 was mutated in the Revenue Records on 18/11/1987 and the legality of the said entry was challenged by the Page 18 of 29 Uploaded by BINOY B PILLAI(HC00183) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 00:21:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2541/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined detendant No.1 to 4 vide R.T.S. Appeal No.35/1990 and the appeal was ordered to be allowed after this an Appeal No.58/98 was filed, which was also dismissed and the entry made in the name of the plaintiff was cancelled vide Entry No.5596 as per order dated 25/1/1994. So, thereafter, the revenue authority has nothing to do in connection with this entry, and the entry was also certified by the authority. So, the entry No.,5497 has already been cancelled by the authority. So. this entry is not in existence. So, the prohibitory injuncion is not liable to be granted in favour of the plaintiff. So, on the date of filing the suit, entry No.3497 was made in the bracket, and in this situation, the implementation of the order has already been made by the authority as per section 135(B) and as per section 135(L) such suit is barred and there is a specific bar that the court has no jurisdiction. So, this suit is not maintainable and the Court cannot give any direction. The defendants have relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 1976 Bombay 160, wherein, the Hon'ble High Court as held that, "The provisions made in the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 and the Rules framed thereunder make ample provision for correction or the entries in the Record of Rights. It is a complete code in itself, and therefore, a suit for the purpose of correcting the entries in the Record of Rights would not be maintainable." Looking to both the judgment relied upon by both the sides, the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay reported in AlR 1976 Bombay 160 was decided on 18/2/1975, while the judgment cited plaintiff's side reported in 1985(1) GLR 139 was decided on 18/7/1984. Now, the decision given in Spl.C.A. No.1413 of 1978 praying to issue writ of certiorari or any other writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the order dated 25/3/76 passed by Deputy Collector. Dhrangadhra, in RRT Appeal No.18/1975-76 and order dated 7/7/77 passed by Deputy Collector, Dhrangadhra, in RRT Appeal No.3/1975-77 and order dtd. 2/5/78, passed by Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad, bearing SSRD/RTS/75-77. So, looking to the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat is the latest judgment than the judgment relied upon by defendant's side. So this is a binding precedent for this Court, and as per this judgment, as per Section 135-H of the Code leave no doubt that an entry in the record of rights has only a presumptive value, and it does not decide the rights of the parties finally, and whenever there is a dispute regarding the right, it is the Civil Court which has to decide the same finally, and the Collector has been enjoined with a duty to correct the entry in the record of rights in accordance with the decision or the Civit Court or the High Court. In other words, the Civil Court is only a statutory authority which can adjudicate and finally decide the right of the parties, and the revenue authority is enjoined to correct the entries in the record of rights in accordance with the decision of the Civil Court.
So when the order was passed to mutate the entry, the dispute arose between the parties and there is no reason to disbelieve that the Civil Count has jurisdiction to correct the revenue entry and looking to the order passed in RTS Appeal No.35/90 delivered by the Dy. Collector, it is held by the Dy. Collector that, the decision of probate Misc.Appln.No.47/88 will be binding for the decision of this matter; and looking to the order delivered by the Collector, Vadodara it is held that the decision of the Civil Court is binding to the Revenue Page 19 of 29 Uploaded by BINOY B PILLAI(HC00183) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 00:21:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2541/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined Authority, and as per the decision of the Civil Court, the same will be implemented in the records of rights. So, as per the above two orders, it is held by both the authorities that, the decision of the Civil Court is final and binding to the revenue authorities. Looking to the evidence produced by the defendant's side, the Entry No.7068 was mutated based on the order passed by the Civil Court (S.D.) in R.C.S. No.97/94 on 28/2/1994, and it was ordered not to change in the records of the disputed property and not to change the entry made for the suit property. Looking to the Entry No.5555 dtd. 30/6/1992, produced by the plaintiffs side, it is mentioned that, as per the Tenancy Case No.1344/89 dtd.15/6/92, there is no bar to restrict the tenant u/s.63 of the Tenancy Act and looking to the Entry No.7068, the name plaintiffs were already mutated in the said entry. So, looking to the legal position and revenue records, at this stage, the dispute property is mutated in the name of the plaintiffs, and there is no bar of jurisdiction to Civil Court. Looking to the overall discussions and evidence it is crystal clear that there is bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court, and even the Collector has already passed an order that the entry will be mutated as per the decision of the Civil Court. So, in view of the above, my reply to issue No.4 is as per the above discussions accordingly."
19. Admission is recorded that by virtue of entry no.3497 the plaintiff had been the owner and occupier of the land in question. Moreover, the entry was posted in the revenue record with the consent of the plaintiff and his brothers (defendant nos.1 to 4 in the said suit). The learned Judge therefore, while deciding the issue no.3 in affirmative, observed that the alteration in the entry is illegal, null and void ab initio. The plaintiff was declared having proved the possession and ownership of the land in question.
20. At this stage, the right to sue accrued to the plaintiff but the plaintiff was rest content with filing of the appeal and not seeking any declaration regarding the ownership which now the plaintiff has sought for. Against the said judgment dated 29.03.2006, Regular Civil Appeal no.79 of 2006 was preferred before the Additional District Judge, Vadodara which came to be decided by judgment dated 11.07.2019. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs has sought to argue that it was only on 11.07.2019 that the proceedings got crystallized, giving rise a cause to the plaintiffs to file the suit.
Page 20 of 29 Uploaded by BINOY B PILLAI(HC00183) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 00:21:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2541/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined
Hence, the limitation would start from 11.07.2019 and the suit filed in the year 2022, was within limitation. The said contention raised by the learned counsel, is untenable and deserves to be rejected for, the documents on record together with the plaint are sufficient enough to come to the conclusion that all throughout the plaintiff had a knowledge. The right to sue accrued to the plaintiff back then in the year 1979 when the Will was executed by the father Haribhai Kashibhai Patel. After the demise of Haribhai Kashibhai Patel, initially heirship entry no.2551 was posted in the revenue record and subsequently on 08.11.1987, entry no.3497 was mutated and the names of the plaintiff and brothers got deleted from village form No.6.
21. Learned counsel appearing for defendant no.8.2 is right in contending that the first and the principal prayer of the plaintiff is seeking declaration of ownership coupled with further declaration that the defendants have no right, title or interest over the suit land. Therefore, the starting point of the limitation for the first prayer had arisen in the years 1979 or thereafter, in the year 1987 or in the year 1990 and also in the year 2003, when the order dated 25.03.2003 of the Secretary, Revenue Department was passed. Pertinently, the right to sue accrued to the plaintiff in the year 1979 when the Will was executed, and if not, in the year 1979, then definitely when entry no.3479 was posted in the revenue record in the year 1987 when the entry was posted and the names of the plaintiff and other two brothers, i.e. defendants were deleted from the revenue record. Even if the plaintiff failed to do so, then when the Regular Civil Suit no.97 of 1994 was allowed wherein, there was a specific issue decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff touching the ownership. The right to sue accrued to the Page 21 of 29 Uploaded by BINOY B PILLAI(HC00183) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 00:21:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2541/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined plaintiff; however, the plaintiff, failed to take any steps and realising or may be as advised, filed the present suit after a gross delay of almost three decades. Pertinently, as per Article 58, the limitation provided is three years from the date when the right to sue first accrued. Considering the same, the suit is barred by limitation. Therefore, when the first prayer itself cannot be entertained, the subsequent violation of the breach would not give right to the plaintiff to sue or to challenge the sale deed.
22. It is also well-settled that if there is successive violations of right, it would not give rise to a fresh cause of action and the suit, would be liable to be dismissed if it is beyond the period of limitation counted from the date when the right to sue first accrued. In the case on hand, therefore, the challenge to the sale deeds of the years 2006, 2015 and 2021, would not give any fresh cause to the plaintiff.
23. Having said so, this Court would also like to deal with the contention raised by the learned advocate appearing for the defendants regarding suppression of material facts of the documents within the knowledge of the plaintiff. It is well settled that when a party approaches the Court of law it is expected that he/she should not only come with clean hands but also with a clean heart. It is well settled that it would be impermissible for any person to pollute the fountain of justice. It is difficult to fathom that when a party has knowledge of the proceedings and all the documents are available with it, what restrains him/her from placing these documents on record. Necessarily, the inference, that can be drawn is that motive, is neither genuine nor bona fide. Suppressing important documents will surely disentitle a party from seeking any Page 22 of 29 Uploaded by BINOY B PILLAI(HC00183) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 00:21:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2541/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined relief as, non-disclosure was only with a view to avoiding rejection of the suit at the threshold. If that be so, whether such a party can be given a premium for suppression or non-disclosure, thereby, nullifying the spirit of the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. Furthermore, the opposite party, would be entangled in the protracted litigation though no fault of his own.
24. It is by now well-settled that the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code is to ensure that frivolous and mischievous suits or a suits without merit, are weeded out at the threshold. In the celebrated judgment of the Apex Court in the case of T. Arivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal reported in (1977) 4 SCC 467 it has been held that if the suit is cleverly drafted to bring within the limitation, it should be nipped in the bud. This is the classic case, that requires to be considered and determined at the threshold. Conscious omission would not permit any party to contend that, at the time of deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11, only and only the plaint and the documents accompanying it can be considered. Clearly, instances of abuse of process of the Court would cover matters where there is suppression of material fact as on the date of institution of the proceedings. In the case of Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (supra), the Apex Court has observed that 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. Paragraphs 23.2, 23.3, 23.4 and 24.4 of the judgment, are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-
23.2 The remedy under Order VII Rule 11 is an independent and special remedy, wherein the Court is empowered to summarily dismiss a suit at the threshold, without proceeding to record evidence, and conducting a trial, on the basis of the evidence Page 23 of 29 Uploaded by BINOY B PILLAI(HC00183) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 00:21:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2541/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined adduced, if it is satisfied that the action should be terminated on any of the grounds contained in this provision.
23.3 The underlying object of Order VII Rule 11 (a) is that if in a suit, no cause of action is disclosed, or the suit is barred by limitation under Rule 11 (d), the Court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in the suit. In such a case, it would be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation, so that further judicial time is not wasted.
23.4 In Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, 1986 Supp SCC 315, 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 :
"12. ...The whole purpose of conferment of such power 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 if an ordinary civil litigation, the Court readily exercises the power to reject a plaint, if it does not disclose any cause of action."
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 Ramachandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal11 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."
25. Yet in another judgment in the case of Rajhans Infracon vs. Santosh Rameshbhai Rathod (supra), this Court, has succinctly considered the consequences of suppression of material fact while filing the suit. This Court has held and observed that it would be obligatory for the plaintiff to plead the cause of action with full material particulars, documents, facts in issue and the relevant facts to his knowledge, information and belief. It has been further held and observed that the obligation is cast upon the plaintiff to explain in the pleadings that the plaint does not suffer from material bar. It has been held and observed that the plaint would not be saved by clever drafting, therefore, pleading of all the facts and production of Page 24 of 29 Uploaded by BINOY B PILLAI(HC00183) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 00:21:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2541/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined the relevant documents which may be in the knowledge and information of the plaintiff is an obligation cast upon it and it is not the matter of choice of the plaintiff. The Court, therefore, may be justified in comprehending such concealed facts and documents, when brought to its notice, for an order under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code and in such an eventuality the plaintiff cannot accuse the Court being unfair to him. Paragraphs 6.1, 6.2 of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-
"6.1 Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC itself is a sufficient notice to the plaintiff for non-sustenance of the plaint for the defects contemplated therein. It would, therefore, be obligatory for the plaintiff to plead the cause of action with full material particulars, documents, facts, facts in issue and the relevant facts to his knowledge, information and belief. It would be obligatory on the part of the plaintiff to explain in the pleadings that the relief claimed is properly valued or that it has been corrected within time allowed by the Court. It would also be obligatory for the plaintiff to satisfy the Court that the plaint is written upon sufficient stamp or that requisite stamp paper is supplied within the time allowed by the Court.
6.2 It would also be obligatory for the plaintiff to explain in the pleadings that the plaint does not suffer from a legal bar. It would be obligatory for the plaintiff to comprehend the relevant legal provisions and to lay a foundation of facts explaining in detail how the plaint does not suffer a legal bar. It is settled legal position that the plaint would not be saved by clever drafting, therefore, pleading of all the facts and production of the relevant documents which may be in the knowledge and information of the plaintiff is an obligation cast upon it and it is not the matter of choice of the plaintiff. The Court, therefore, may be justified in comprehending such concealed facts and documents, when brought to its notice, for an order under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC and in such an eventuality the plaintiff cannot accuse the Court being unfair to him."
26. In the case on hand, indisputably, the plaintiff was very much party to all the proceedings; however, the plaintiff has for the reasons best known to him, selectively produced only the entries, omitting to produce the orders passed by the revenue authorities. To name a few, the order of the Special Secretary, Revenue Department, which was adverse to the plaintiff is not forming part of Page 25 of 29 Uploaded by BINOY B PILLAI(HC00183) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 00:21:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2541/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined the documents. The Special Secretary, Revenue Department, was of the opinion that while deciding the legality and validity of the entry, it was impermissible for the Mamlatdar and the Deputy Collector to have gone into the merits and demerits of the issue otherwise governed by other laws. The Special Secretary, Revenue Department was of the opinion that the entry could not have been quashed. The matter was remanded to the Mamlatdar & ALT who had passed an order dated 04.08.2004 which again was not favourable to the plaintiff and hence, not forming part of the documents together with the plaint.
27. In this connection, it is interesting to note that the plaintiff has placed on record together with the plaint, entry no.5555 of the year 1992 with a specific reference therein of the proceedings conducted in the year 1982 in connection with the Tenancy Case no.1344 of 1989 and the order passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT dated 15.06.1992. In the proceedings before the Mamlatdar, the statement of one of the defendants and brother of the plaintiff was recorded categorically admitting that the land in question has been given to Lalitchandra Motilal Patel, Jivanlal Motilal Patel and Ramanlal Shankarlal Patel during the lifetime of his father. It is also admitted and agreed that the Will had been executed by the father. Request was made to withdraw the notice. The entry though is forming part of the documents, unfortunately, the plaintiff chose not to place the order together with the plaint, which is nothing, but a suppression on the part of the plaintiff. Similarly, the order of the Deputy Collector dated 20.06.2006, is also not finding place on the record, except the entry together with the documents produced by them. So is the position with the order passed by the Tribunal dated 28.03.2017. Precisely, Page 26 of 29 Uploaded by BINOY B PILLAI(HC00183) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 00:21:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2541/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined the gist of the proceedings, the facts recorded, can be traced only from the orders of the revenue authorities; however, they are missing.
28. Another important aspect which needs to be taken note of is the proceedings of mutation of the entry no.3497. The statements of the heirs, were recorded and is duly signed by the plaintiff and other brothers. It was only after recording the statement, the entry no.3497 was certified by the Mamlatdar. Moreover, the entry no.3497 was subject matter of challenge before the Deputy Collector. The stand taken by the plaintiff was not of the non- observance of the proceedings under section 135 of the Act of 1948 or the mutation of the entry behind the back of the plaintiff, but Lalitchandra Motilal Patel, Jivanlal Motilal Patel and Ramanlal Shankarlal Patel were not possessing agricultural land elsewhere and the transaction was hit by the provisions of section 63 of the Act of 1948.
29. Therefore, the plaintiff, clearly held back rather suppressed the material facts. Omission to place on record the documents, which are not favourable and selectively placing the favourable documents, is nothing, but a mischievous attempt on the part of the plaintiff to come out of the lethal bar of limitation. Having not produced and as stated earlier to contend that at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, only the plaint and the documents together with the plaint, have to be considered, is nothing, but an attempt on the part of the plaintiff to overcome the omission and gross lapse of not producing the relevant documents on the record.
30. It is also pertinent to mention that the documents, which are produced are the orders passed in the judicial and quasi-judicial Page 27 of 29 Uploaded by BINOY B PILLAI(HC00183) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 00:21:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2541/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined proceedings by the revenue authorities between the parties, namely, the plaintiff and the defendants and therefore, it was the bounden duty of the plaintiff to have placed on record each and every document. The plaintiff having failed to produce on record the said documents cannot be permitted to take the shelter that only the documents together with the plaint need to be considered.
31. It is well-settled that the remedy under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code is an independent and a special remedy wherein, the Court is empowered to summarily dismiss the suit at the threshold without proceeding to record evidence and conducting the trial on the basis of the evidence adduced, if it is satisfied that the action should be terminated on any ground contained in the provision. It has been held and observed that underlying object of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code is that if in a suit, no cause of action is disclosed or the suit is barred by limitation, the Court should not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in the suit and in such a case, it would be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation so that further judicial time is not wasted.
32. While concluding, it is required to be noted that a contention is raised that the Court has considered the documents, which were not available with the plaint; however, even if those documents are kept aside, the documents produced by the plaintiff, clearly make out a case that the right to sue first accrued to the plaintiff in the year 1979 when the Will was executed and thereafter, in the year 1987 when the entry no.3497 was mutated. In view of the above discussion, no error can be said to have been committed by the learned Judge, warranting interference by this Court. Therefore, the appeal, is dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs.
Page 28 of 29 Uploaded by BINOY B PILLAI(HC00183) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 00:21:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2541/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined
Connected Civil Application, also stands disposed of.
33. Record & proceedings, if any received, shall be sent back to the concerned Court forthwith.
(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J) (MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J) BINOY B PILLAI Page 29 of 29 Uploaded by BINOY B PILLAI(HC00183) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 00:21:43 IST 2025