Gujarat High Court
Manibhai Asharam Shah vs Ranchodbhai Cheetabhai ... on 17 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/182/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 182 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
MANIBHAI ASHARAM SHAH
Versus
RANCHODBHAI CHEETABHAI PATEL(DEC.)THROUGH LEGAL HERIS &
ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SP MAJMUDAR(3456) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES
for the Opponent(s) No. 1,1.1
MR DHARMENDRA PARIKH(2389) for the Opponent(s) No. 1.1.1,1.1.2,2,3,4
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s) No. 5,6,7
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Date : 17/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present Revision Application has been filed challenging the order dated 20.03.2013 passed by 6th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and Additional Senior Civil Judge Vadodara below Exh.16 in Regular Civil Suit No.682 of 2011 whereby the application Exh.16 filed under the under the provisions of Order VII Rule of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been rejected.
2. For the sake of brevity, parties are referred to as per their original status before the trial Court.
Page 1 of 21 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:14:29 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/182/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined FACTS OF THE CASE:
3.1 The brief facts arising in the present application are that the plaintiff has filed the civil suit on the ground that, deceased plaintiff nos.1, 2 and 3 are sisters of defendant nos.1, 2 and 3 and it is the case of plaintiff that the suit property belonged to father of the plaintiffs and defendant no.1 to 3 viz. Ranchhodbhai Patel and plaintiff no.1 got married on 18.05.1953, plaintiff no.2 got married on 05.06.1995, plaintiff no.3 got married on 19.04.1980 and plaintiff no.4 got married on 06.03.1998. It is the case of the plaintiff that since the date of marriage of plaintiffs were residing in their respective in-laws house and are not aware of any transaction with respect to suit property.
3.2 It is the case of the plaintiff that fraudulent revenue entry has been created with respect to suit property and that the suit property has been wrongly sold on 25.03.1985 and, therefore, plaintiff has filed suit challenging the sale-deed and for injunction with respect to the suit property. It is the case of the plaintiff that it is only when search report with respect to the suit property was taken the plaintiff came to know about the suit transaction and, therefore, plaintiff has filed the suit.
3.3 The defendant no.4 appeared in the said suit and filed application vide Exh.16 under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. The trial Court rejected the said application and hence the present Revision Application.
SUBMISSION OF THE DEFENDANT - PETITIONER :
4.1 Learned advocate for the defendant no.4 has mainly argued that the Page 2 of 21 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:14:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/182/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined suit is hopelessly time barred. The plaintiffs are claiming right in the suit property and the plaintiff has challenged the sale-deed dated 25.03.1985 and the said sale-deed has been challenged in the year 2011. Moreover, thereafter also the defendant no.4 has further sold the suit property by way of registered sale-deed dated 07.07.2009, 14.06.2010 and 14.06.2010 and, therefore, it is the case of the plaintiff that though fraud has been stated to have been alleged on the plaintiff, no particulars of fraud has been stated in the plaint and therefore also plaint is required to be rejected.
4.2 Learned advocate for the defendant has mainly argued that suit that has been filed by plaintiff is hopelessly time barred as the fact that the sale-deeds under challenge are registered documents and, therefore, it is deemed knowledge and it has also been argued that defendant nos.1, 2 and 3 were real owners of the property and they have executed sale-deed in favour of defendant no.4 and the said deeds could not have been challenged after period of 26 years and therefore also plaint is required to be rejected.
4.3 Learned advocate for the defendant has also argued that suit that has been filed by defendant nos.1 to 4 is through son of defendant no.3 and defendant no.2 is one of the sellers of the document dated 25.03.1985 and therefore it cannot be believed that plaintiff were not aware of the suit transaction. It has been argued that the plaintiffs have filed the suit in collusion with defendant nos.1, 2 and 3 and it is the case of the plaintiff that defendant nos.1,2 and 3 had not informed about the fact of revenue entries, but the fact remains that the son of defendant no.3 is a power of Page 3 of 21 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:14:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/182/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined attorney of plaintiff nos.1, 2 and 3 and, therefore, it has been argued that present plaint is required to be rejected being barred by law.
5. Though served, none appeared for the respondents - original plaintiffs.
6.1 Having heard learned advocate for the petitioner and having considered the plaint and the order that has been passed by the trial Court, fact remains that plaintiff are claiming right in the suit property, on the ground that suit property belonged to their father and that fraudulent revenue entry has been created by defendant no.1,2 and 3 and that defendant nos.1, 2 and 3 have fraudulently executed sale-deed in favour of defendant no.4 on 25.03.1985. It has been averred in the plaint that plaintiffs were not at all aware about suit transaction in view of the fact that plaintiffs were married and staying with in-laws and it is only on 11.06.2011, plaintiffs came to know about the said fact.
6.2 It has also been stated in the plaintiffs that time and again plaintiff nos.1, 2 and 3 were inquiring about the suit transaction with defendant nos.1, 2 and 3 were giving false and evasive reply but the fact remains that power of attorney of plaintiff nos.1, 2 and 3 is son of defendant nos.1, 2 and 3 and, therefore, it cannot be believed that plaintiffs were not aware about the suit transaction.
6.3 It is important to note that sale-deed that has been executed by defendant nos.1 to 3 is registered sale-deed and, therefore, the same is deemed knowledge.
Page 4 of 21 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:14:29 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/182/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined 6.4 [R1 Para:50] It is important now to see what is the position of law on 'deemed knowledge' of registered documents. Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again laid down the law relating to deemed knowledge, cause of action and ultimately, limitation. It is necessary for me to consider the said law before I proceed for a finding on that proposition.
6.5 Genesis of this doctrine or proposition seems to lay in the fact that a person cannot after an indefinite period of time rise to challenge everything or every document which has been executed while that person was in a slumber. Therefore, some questions which can legitimately arise such a situation are (i) Whether the Plaintiff could have reasonably known about a transaction? (ii) Could that factum of execution of the transaction be discovered by the Plaintiff by due diligence? (iii) What is the nature of right that the Plaintiff claims to hold over the property? (iv) Is his claim of belated knowledge consistent with such right that the Plaintiff professes to have?, etc. 6.6 Originally, Hon'ble Apex Court in Dilboo (Dead) and Ors. vs. Dhanraji (Dead) and Ors. MANU/SC/3318/2000 held as follows:
"It is always for the party who files the suit to show that the suit is within time. Thus in cases where the suit is filed beyond the period of 12 years, the Plaintiff would have to aver and then prove that the suit is within 12 years of his/her knowledge. In the absence of any averment or proof, to show that the suit is within time it is the Plaintiff who would fall. Whenever a document is registered the date of registration becomes the date of deemed Page 5 of 21 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:14:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/182/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined 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."
6.7 This principle as laid down in Dilboo (supra) has been followed in several judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court [See: Padhiar Prahladji Chenaji v. Maniben Jagmalbhai, (2022) 12 SCC 128, etc.] This has been the settled proposition of law since many years and decades now.
6.8 However, the other side of the position on acquisition of knowledge is also required to be noticed at this juncture.
6.9 In Daliben Valjibhai and Ors. v. Prajapati Kodarbhai Kachrabhai and Ors., MANU/SC/1433/2024, the Hon'ble Apex Court while negating the stance of deemed knowledge held as under:
"9. Having considered the judgment of the High Court in detail, we are of the opinion that the findings of the High Court are primarily factual. The High Court seems to have got carried away by the fact that the suit was filed 13 years after the execution of the sale deed. The question is whether the Plaintiffs had the knowledge of the execution of the sale deed. The High Court expected that the Plaintiffs must have given meticulous details of the fraud perpetuated in the plaint itself.
10. The First Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the Defendants made an application for correcting the revenue records only in the year 2017 and on the said application the Deputy Collector issued notice to the Plaintiffs in March 2017 and that was the time when the Page 6 of 21 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:14:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/182/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined Plaintiffs came to know about the execution of the sale deed. It is under these circumstances that the suit was instituted in the year 2017. While the High Court came to the correct conclusion that Under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, a suit can be instituted within 3 years of the knowledge, it proceeded to return a finding that in cases where the document is registered, the knowledge must be presumed from the date of registration.
...
13. In view of the above, there was no justification for the High Court in allowing the application Under Order 7 Rule 11, on issues that were not evident from the plaint averments itself. The High Court was also not justified in holding that the limitation period commences from the date of registration itself. In this view of the matter the judgment of the High Court is unsustainable."
6.10 Moreover, in Chhotanben Chhotanben v. Kirtibhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar, MANU/SC/0346/2018 Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:
"15. What is relevant for answering the matter in issue in the context of the application Under Order 7 Rule 11(d) Code of Civil Procedure, is to examine the averments in the plaint. The plaint is required to be read as a whole. The defence available to the Defendants or the plea taken by them in the written statement or any application filed by them, cannot be the basis to decide the application Under Order 7 Rule 11(d). Only the averments in the plaint are germane. It is common ground that the registered sale deed is dated 18-10- 1996. The limitation to challenge the registered sale deed ordinarily would start running from the date on which the sale deed was registered. However, the specific case of the Appellant- Plaintiffs is that until 2013 they had no knowledge whatsoever regarding execution of such sale deed by their brothers, original Page 7 of 21 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:14:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/182/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined Defendants 1 and 2, in favour of Jaikrishnabhai Prabhudas Thakkar or Defendants 3 to 6. They acquired that knowledge on 26-12-2012 and immediately took steps to obtain a certified copy of the registered sale deed and on receipt thereof they realised the fraud played on them by their brothers concerning the ancestral property and two days prior to the filing of the suit, had approached their brothers (original Defendants 1 and 2) calling upon them to stop interfering with their possession and to partition the property and provide exclusive possession of half (½) portion of the land so designated towards their share. However, when they realised that the original Defendants 1 and 2 would not pay any heed to their request, they had no other option but to approach the court of law and filed the subject suit within two days therefrom. According to the Appellants, the suit has been filed within time after acquiring the knowledge about the execution of the registered sale deed. In this context, the trial court opined that it was a triable issue and declined to accept the application filed by Respondent 1-Defendant 5 for rejection of the plaint Under Order 7 Rule 11(d). That view commends to us".
6.11 In facts of these cases including Daliben (supra) and Chhotanben (supra), the Hon'ble Court has come to the conclusion that it was not ex facie evident from averments made in the Plaint that the Plaintiff had knowledge of the registration of the sale deed.
6.12 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.
Page 8 of 21 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:14:29 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/182/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined Irrespective of the above, the fact that the predecessors of the Respondent No. 1/Plaintiff, never challenged the sale of property to the Defendant No. 1/Appellant by court auction and the subsequent registration of the deeds, despite constructive notice, would imply that they had acceded to the title of the Appellant, which cannot now be questioned by the Plaintiff after such long time. There is also a presumption in law that a registered document is validly executed and is valid until it is declared as illegal. In this regard, this Court in Prem Singh v. Birbal MANU/SC/8139/2006, held as under:
27. There is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. The onus of proof, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the 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 Page 9 of 21 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:14:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/182/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined Under Sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), from the earliest date on which any memorandum of such registered instrument has been filed by any Sub-Registrar within whose sub-district any part of the property which is being acquired, or of the property wherein a share or interest is being acquired, is situated:
Provided that-(1) the instrument has been registered and its registration completed in the manner prescribed by the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), and the Rules made thereunder, (2) the instrument or memorandum 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 Page 10 of 21 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:14:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/182/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined 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 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 Page 11 of 21 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:14:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/182/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined 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..."
6.13 This principle is recently elaborated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi v. Anand Kumar, (2025) 5 SCC 198 as follows:
"13.A registered document provides a complete account of a transaction to any party interested in the property. This Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. (2) v.State of Haryana [Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. (2) v. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 656 : (2012) 1 SCC (Civ) 351 :
(2012) 169 Comp Cas 133 : (2012) 340 ITR 1] held as under : (SCC pp. 664-65, para 15)
15. ... '17. ... Registration of a document [when it is required by law to be, and has been effected by a registered instrument] [Ed. : Section 3 Explanation I TPA, reads as follows:"S. 3 Expln. I--Where any transaction relating to immovable property is required by law to be and has been effected by a registered instrument, any person acquiring such property or any part of, or share or interest in, such property shall be deemed to have notice of such instrument as from the date of registration...."(emphasis supplied)]] gives notice to the world that such a document has been executed
18. Registration provides safety and security to transactions relating to immovable property, even if the document is lost or destroyed. It gives publicity and public exposure to documents thereby preventing Page 12 of 21 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:14:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/182/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined 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 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."
6.14 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 Page 13 of 21 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:14:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/182/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined under:
"14. As held by the Supreme Court in case of Dilboo (Smt.) (dead) by Lrs (supra), whenever a document is registered, the date of registration becomes the date of deemed knowledge. In other cases, where a fact could be discovered by due diligence, then deemed knowledge would be attributed to the plaintiff, because a party cannot be allowed to extend period of limitation by merely claiming that he had no knowledge. It is held that in other cases where a fact could be discovered by due diligence then deemed knowledge would be attributed to the plaintiff because a party cannot be allowed to extend period of limitation by merely claiming that he had no knowledge. In the present case, the cause of action, as narrated in the plaint, more particularly Paragraph No. 4 thereof, states that the plaintiffs came to know for the first time about the registered document in the year 2018 when they applied for Village Form No. 7/12 extract. The plaintiffs in the plaint, is seeking setting aside of the registered sale deed and as a consequence are also claiming a share in the suit land. The averments in the plaint reflect that she has alleged that heirs of late Bhagwanji Maganji and Pratapji Maganji came to be brought on the revenue record on 07.06.2005 and it is further stated that late mother of the plaintiffs, though was heir of Bhagwanji Maganji, her name was not brought on record and she died on 17.03.2003 but in changed Entry No. 2157, the names of the plaintiffs are not recorded or entered and they came to know on 17.07.2018 when the certified copy of Village Form No. 7/12 was obtained. The facts, as narrated in the plaint, will suggest that since 2003 till 2018, no efforts are made by the plaintiffs to see that after the demise 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 Page 14 of 21 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:14:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/182/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined reason of obtaining Village Form No. 7/12 extract on 17.07.2018 by alleging that they were kept in dark for 15 years, after the registration of the sale deed on 25.05.2006. It cannot be said that the plaintiffs have discovered the fact of execution of the registered sale on due diligence by obtaining such extract after a period of 15 years. Hence, the suit, which is otherwise barred under the provisions of Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act, by way of clever drafting and by devising the cause of action, on the basis of procuring village Form No. 7/12 in the year 2018; the suit only appears to have been instituted to frustrate the rights of the defendants. With regard to the prayer of seeking proportionate share in the suit land, the same is a consequential relief which entirely depends on the setting aside the registered sale, hence the suit cannot be allowed to be continued for the residuary prayer."
6.15 Having noticed the aforesaid position of law on the aspect of 'deemed knowledge' the following principles can be culled out:
1) Prima Facie, there is a presumption that a registered document has been validly executed [Prem Singh (supra)].
2) Registration of a document, (unless rebutting the presumption of knowledge) gives notice to public about such registration [Suraj Lamps (supra) Para 17].
3) 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 [Dilboo (supra)].
4) After this stage, two outcomes may occur.
i. The Plaintiff has validly pleaded material and exact dates Page 15 of 21 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:14:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/182/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined of acquiring knowledge, etc. and has pleaded a cause of action which is triable [cases to the likes of Daliben, Chhotanben, etc.] ii. The Plaintiff has made vague averments, pleaded illusory cause, inasmuch as has pleaded such averments which outright show that the date of knowledge as pleaded by the Plaintiff is a false contention by way of clever drafting.
5) Therefore, at this juncture, under Order VII Rule 11, it is important to examine and scrutinize the cause of action so pleaded. If the cause of action is illusory, vexatious or frivolous as being outright sham.
6.16 Therefore, the aforesaid facts clearly show that the Plaint was barred by limitation and it is only to extend the period of limitation that knowledge of such transactions is claimed to be recent. This is impermissible in the eyes of law.
6.17 Such cases, where the Plaintiff in opinion of the Court, on a bare, entire and meaningful reading of the Plaint, has pleaded a cause of action which is illusory and merely by clever drafting the Plaintiff is seeking to extend the limitation, deserve to be nipped in the bud.
6.18 The present case falls in the category where the Plaintiff has pleaded a completely illusory and frivolous cause of action. This is clear from the following undisputed facts:
(i) The plaintiff claims to be the owner of the property;
(ii) After over 26 years, the stance of the plaintiff in the suit is that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff. However, they suddenly came Page 16 of 21 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:14:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/182/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined to know about the suit transaction.
(iii) Even if the version of the plaintiff is taken on demurrer then it transpires that the plaintiff had not duly verified or had diligence to verify that an entry has been mutated in the revenue record of the suit property since the year 1985.
6.19 Hence, in the present case, no shadow or doubt is cast over the presumption of deemed knowledge. The Plaintiff has not disclosed any cause of action. In fact, the cause of action pleaded by the Plaintiff is illusory and by clever drafting, the present suit is sought to be tried.
6.20 In view of the above referred facts Article 59 of Schedule of Limitation Act would be required to be considered.
Article 59 of the Limitation Act
59. To cancel or set aside an Three When the facts entitling the instrument or decree or for Years. Plaintiff to have the instrument or the rescission of a contract. decree cancelled or set aside or the contract rescinded first become known to him.
6.21 Therefore, what is to be seen is that to obtain a declaratory relief, the limitation starts running from the day that the right to sue first accrues.
6.22 In Dahiben (supra) the Court stated as thus:
Page 17 of 21 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:14:29 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/182/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined "In Khatri Hotels Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr., (2011) 9 SCC 126, this Court held that the use of the word first between the words sue and accrued, would mean that if a suit is based on multiple causes of action, the period of limitation will begin to run from the date when the right to sue first accrues. That is, if there are successive violations of the right, it would not give rise to a fresh cause of action, and the suit will be liable to be dismissed, if it is beyond the period of limitation counted from the date when the right to sue first accrued." 6.23 In view of the said provision it makes it clear that the aggrieved person is supposed to file a suit to cancel or set aside an instrument within a period of three years from the date on which he comes to know about registration of Sale Deed.
6.24 While taking into consideration an Application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code, the Court has to consider the averments in the Plaint and the documents produced along with the Plaint but there cannot be any dispute that if the Court finds that considering the averments in the Plaint the suit is clearly barred by law of limitation the Plaint can be rejected in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code.
6.25 In the present case, the documents which have been referred are registered documents and therefore the date of registration becomes the date of deemed knowledge and the said fact which could have been easily discovered by due diligence. Hence, the Plaintiff cannot state that for 26 years the Plaintiff was not aware of execution of a Sale Deed with respect to a property that the Plaintiffs allege to belong to them.Page 18 of 21 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:14:29 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/182/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined 6.26 In the present case the suit properties have been transferred by registered documents and therefore the date of registration becomes the date of deemed knowledge and in the present case the fact of registration of Sale Deeds could be discovered by due diligence by the Plaintiffs and therefore the Plaintiff would be deemed to have necessary knowledge.
6.27 The present Plaintiff has by clever drafting tried to bring the suit within the period of limitation which otherwise is barred by law of limitation. In the present case no particulars of fraud have been given in the Plaint and the Plaintiff had only stated that the fraud have been committed on the Plaintiffs. The law is very clear under the Order VI Rule 4 of the Code which reads as under:
"4. Particulars to be given where necessary. - In all cases in which the party pleading relies on any misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, willful default, or undue influence, and in all other cases in which particulars may be necessary beyond such as are exemplified in the forms aforesaid, particulars (with dates and items if necessary) shall be stated in the pleading."
6.28 Therefore, there has to be details of fraud as the fraud relies on misrepresentation, fraud breach of trust, undue reference and therefore, the particular are to be given.
7. The present is the case of shrewd and crafty drafting, the averments made in the Plaint clearly show that by clever drafting the Plaintiff has tried to show that the suit is within the period of limitation. The Page 19 of 21 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:14:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/182/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined Court has to consider and read in meaningful manner the averments made in the Plaint and the present suit having been filed challenging the Sale Deed after 26 years, the Plaint is hopelessly time barred. The bar of limitation has got its own significance and the object as such by referring smart averments, such statutory provision cannot be sidelined. Though the issue of limitation is mixed question of law and fact but only by that fact an application under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code cannot be rejected as it would frustrate the very purpose of the said provision and permit such kind of frivolous litigation which are hopelessly barred by law of limitation and the same will have to be decided irrespective of its tenability.
8. In Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. Vs. Central Bank of India And Anr., AIR Online 2020 SC 576 Hon'ble Apex Court stated that the Trial Court cannot selectively read averments of the Plaint as pleaded in cause of action and in fact, the same must be read completely and meaningfully. However, in the present case, even upon an entire reading of the Plaint, the cause of action is not disclosed and it is only illusory and sham.
9. Similary in Salim D. Agboatwala and Ors. Vs. Shamalji Oddhavji Thakkar and Ors, AIR Online 2021 SC 731 Hon'ble Court held that the limitation was a mixed question of law and fact. It was held in those given facts that the Plaintiff became aware of the transaction when it gained knowledge of the proceedings. However, in the present case, the Plaintiff has stated that for a period of over 41 years and revenue entry entered in the year 1959 was not within Page 20 of 21 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:14:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/182/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined knowledge of the Plaintiff. This is clearly is clever drafting and hence, must be nipped in the bud.
10. Even the Judgments of Daliben (supra) and Chhotanben (supra) are not applicable in facts of the present case as discussed above.
CONCLUSION :
11. Therefore, as discussed above, the present case is a case of clever drafting by the Plaintiff to extend and shroud the actual period of limitation. The Plaintiff cannot be permitted to challenge registered sale deeds after a period of over 26 years in view of the discussion above.
12. In view of the foregoing, the present Plaint is barred by Limitation and hence, the same is required to be rejected under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11. Consequently, the present Civil Revision Application deserves to be allowed and is thus allowed. The Plaint in Regular Civil Suit No.682 of 2011 is hereby rejected. Rule is made absolute.
Sd/-
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J) MISHRA AMIT V. Page 21 of 21 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:14:29 IST 2025