Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Gujarat High Court

Atulbhai Vishubhai Patel & 4 vs Mahendrabhai Somabhai Patel & ... on 7 September, 2017

Author: Bela M. Trivedi

Bench: Bela M. Trivedi

                  C/CRA/384/2014                                             ORDER



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 384 of 2014
         ======================================
         ==============
                ATULBHAI VISHUBHAI PATEL & 4....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus
             MAHENDRABHAI SOMABHAI PATEL & 1....Opponent(s)
         ======================================
         ==============
         Appearance:
         MR MIHIR THAKORE, SR. ADVOCATE for MR SP MAJMUDAR,
         ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 5
         MR. HJ KARATHIYA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 5
         MR DARSHAN P DAVE, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1 - 2
         ======================================
         ==============

         CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI

                                   Date : 07/09/2017
         ORAL ORDER

1. With   the   consent   of   learned   Advocates   for   the  parties,   the   Revision   Application   is   finally  heard as per the order dated 28.08.2017.

2. The   applicants­   original   defendants   have   filed  the   present   Civil   Revision   Application   under  section   115   of   the   Civil   Procedure   Code  challenging the order dated 14.10.2011 passed by  the Additional Civil Judge, Vadodara (hereinafter  referred to as 'the Trial Court') below Exh.28 in  Regular   Civil   Suit   No.805   of   2006,   whereby   the  Trial Court has rejected the application filed by  the   applicants   seeking   rejection   of   the   plaint  under   Order   VII   Rule   11   of   the   Civil   Procedure  Code. 

HC-NIC Page 1 of 8 Created On Sun Oct 01 16:17:50 IST 2017 C/CRA/384/2014 ORDER

3. The   respondents­plaintiffs   have   filed   the   suit  before   the   Trial   Court   seeking   declaration   that  the   plaintiffs   had   a   right   in   their   ancestral  land bearing revenue Survey no.26 admeasuring  1­ 55­80 hector situated at villaege Akodia, Taluka  and   District   Vadodara,   and   that   the   sale­deed  dated   04.09.1985   executed   by   their   father  Somabhai Patel in favour of the defendant Nos.1­3  was not binding to them. It is also prayed that  the   gift   deed   dated   23.08.2001   executed   by   the  defendant   Nos.1­3   in   favour   of   the   defendant  no.4­5   was   also   not   binding   to   the   plaintiffs.  The   respondents­plaintiffs   have   also   prayed   for  permanent   injunction   for   restraining   the  defendants   from   transferring,   alienating   or  creating   any   third   party   interest   in   the   suit  land.   As   per   the   case   of   the   respondents­ plaintiffs,   the   land   in   question   was   an  agricultural land belonging to their forefathers  and   the   plaintiffs   and   their   brothers   had   an  undivided   share   in   the   said   land.   It   has   been  further alleged in the plaint that their father  Somabhai   had   executed   a   sale­deed   in   favour   of  defendant   Nos.1­3   on   04.09.1985,   which   was  registered   in   the   office   of   sub­Registrar,  Vadodara and on the basis of the same, names of  defendant   nos.1­3   were   entered   in   the   revenue  records.   According   to   the   plaintiffs,   the   said  sale was made by Somabhai without their consent  and therefore was not binding to them. The said  defendant Nos.1­3 had thereafter further executed  Page 2 of 8 HC-NIC Page 2 of 8 Created On Sun Oct 01 16:17:50 IST 2017 C/CRA/384/2014 ORDER a   gift   deed   dated   23.08.2001   in   favour   of  defendant nos.4­5 in violation of the provisions  contained in  the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural  Lands Act, 1948 and therefore, the said gift deed  was not valid and binding to them.

4. On   the   summons   having   been   served,   the   present  applicants­original   defendants   had   filed   an  application   under   Order   VII   Rule   11   seeking  rejection   of   the   plaint   on   the   ground   that   the  plaintiffs had not paid the requisite court fees  and that the suit of the plaintiffs was barred by  law of Limitation. The said application has been  rejected   by   the   Trial   Court   vide   the   impugned  order,   against   which   present   Civil   Revision  Application is filed. 

5. The   Learned   Senior   Advocate   Mr.Mihir   Thakore  appearing   with   learned   Advocate   Mr.S.P.Majmudar  for   the   applicants   taking   the   Court   to   the  averments made in the plaint submitted that the  suit   filed   by   the   respondents­plaintiffs   was  grossly   time   barred   inasmuch   as   the   plaintiffs  have   sought   to   challenge   the   sale­deed   dated  04.09.1985   executed   by   their   father   Somabhai   in  favour of defendant nos.1­3 by filing the suit in  the   year   2006.   He   also   submitted   that   the  respondents­   plaintiffs   have   conveniently  remained silent about the death of Somabhai and  also as to when the plaintiffs came to know about  the said sale­deed. 

HC-NIC Page 3 of 8 Created On Sun Oct 01 16:17:50 IST 2017 C/CRA/384/2014 ORDER

6. However,     learned   Advocate   Mr.   Darshan   P.   Dave  for   the   respondents­plaintiffs   relying   upon   the  Article 109 of the Limitation Act submitted that  the suit was filed within the prescribed period  of   limitation   and   the   question   of   limitation  being mixed question of law and facts, the plaint  cannot be rejected at this juncture. 

7. Having regard to the submissions made by learned  Advocates for the parties and to the documents on  record more particularly, the plaint of the suit  as well as the impugned order passed by the Trial  Court, it appears that though one of the grounds  seeking   rejection   of   the   plaint   was   that     the  plaintiffs had not paid the requisite court fees,  the said ground was not pressed into service at  the   time   of   arguments.   The   only   ground   pressed  for in the present Civil Revision Application is  that the suit is barred by law of limitation. 

8. It is axiomatic to say that the plaint could be  rejected under Clause (d) of Rule 11, if the suit  is   ex­facie   found   to   be   barred   by   law   of  limitation from the averments made in the plaint.  It   is   also   settled   law   that   if   clever   drafting  has   created   an   illusion   of   cause   of   action   to  file   a   suit   which   otherwise   would   be   barred   by  law,   the   Court   must   nip   it   in   the   bud   at   the  first hearing. It is the substance and not merely  the form of the suit that should be looked into.  A   beneficial   reference   of   judgments   of   Supreme  Court in case of T.Arivandandam Vs. T.V.Satyapal  Page 4 of 8 HC-NIC Page 4 of 8 Created On Sun Oct 01 16:17:50 IST 2017 C/CRA/384/2014 ORDER reported   in  AIR   1977   SC   2421,  in   the   case   of  Hardesh Ores Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Hede and Company  reported in (2007) 5 SCC 614, and in the case of  N.V.Srinivasa Murthy & Ors. Vs. Mariyamma (Dead)  By   proposed  Lrs.   And   Ors.  reported in  (2005)   5  SCC 548 be made in this regard. 

9. If the facts of the present case are appreciated  in the light of the aforestated legal position,  then   it   appears   from   the   averment   made   in   the  plaint   that   the   sale­deed   dated   04.09.1985  executed by the father of the plaintiffs Somabhai  has   been   sought   to   be   challenged   by   the  plaintiffs in the year 2006 i.e. after a period  of about 21 years of its execution. It is stated  by   the   plaintiffs   in   the   plaint   itself   that  pursuant to the said sale­deed, the names of the  defendant   nos.1­3   were   entered   in   the   revenue  record. The plaintiffs have conveniently remained  silent   as   to   when   did   they   come   to   know   about  execution   of   the   said   sale­deed.   It   cannot   be  gainsaid   that   when   a   suit   challenging   the  validity   of   a   document   is   filed   ex­facie   after  the prescribed period of limitation, it would be  incumbent on the part of the plaintiffs to state  in the plaint as to when did they come to know  about   the   execution   of   the   document   under  challenge, otherwise an inference would be drawn  against them that the plaintiffs were aware about  the   execution   of   the   document   in   question,  however,   they   had   chosen   not   to   challenge   the  same within the prescribed period of limitation. 

HC-NIC Page 5 of 8 Created On Sun Oct 01 16:17:50 IST 2017 C/CRA/384/2014 ORDER In the instant case, not only such an averment is  missing, the plaintiffs have also not stated as  to when their father Somabhai expired, and as to  why the said sale­deed was not challenged during  his   lifetime.   When   the   names   of   the   defendant  nos.1­3   were   entered   in   the   revenue   record  pursuant   to   the   sale­deed   executed   in   1985,   it  was   incumbent   on   the   part   of   the   plaintiffs   to  state as to when and how did they come to know  about the same, or as to why they were not aware  about the said entries in the revenue record.   

10. It is needless to say that as per Article 59 of  the Limitation Act, for a suit to cancel or set  aside   an   instrument   or   decree   or   for   the  rescission   of   a   contract,   the   period   of  limitation prescribed is 3 years when the facts  entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument or  decree   cancelled   or   set   aside   or   the   contract  rescinded first became known to the plaintiff. In  the instant case, in absence of any averment made  in the plaint as to when the plaintiffs came to  know   about   the   execution   of   the   said   sale­deed  executed by their father in the year 1985, it is  required   to   be   presumed   that   they   had   the  knowledge of the said sale­deed since 1985 or at  least   since   the   date   when   the   names   of   the  defendant   nos.1­3   were   entered   in   the   revenue  record. 

11. Learned   Advocate   Mr.Dave   for   the   respondent   has  relied   upon   Article   109   of   the   Limitation   Act,  Page 6 of 8 HC-NIC Page 6 of 8 Created On Sun Oct 01 16:17:50 IST 2017 C/CRA/384/2014 ORDER which   has   no   application   to   the   facts   of   the  present   case,   inasmuch   as   the   said   Article  applies   when   the   Hindu   governed   by   Mitakhshara  law seeks to set aside his father's alienation of  ancestral   property.   The   period   of   limitation  prescribed   under   the   said   Article   is   12   years  when alienee takes possession of the property. In  the   instant   case,   the   plaintiffs   have   again  conveniently   remained   silent   as   to   when   the  alienees i.e the defendant nos.1­3 had taken over  possession of the land after the execution of the  sale­deed  in  the  year  1985,  so  as  to  bring  the  suit   within   the   period   of   limitation   under  Article 109 of the Limitation Act. The cause of  action mentioned in the Para No.6 of the plaint  is   with   regard   to   the   publication   of   notice   by  the   defendant   nos.4   and   5.   In   absence   of   any  specific   averment   made   in   the   plaint,   it   is  required   to   be   presumed   that   the   alienees   i.e.  the   defendant   nos.1­3   had   taken   over   the  possession   of   the   suit   land   in   the   year   1985  itself, when the sale­deed was executed in their  favour and when their names were entered in the  revenue   records.   The   suit   having   been   filed   by  the respondents­ plaintiffs in the year 2006, the  same is ex­facie barred by law of limitation, and  hence   the   plaint   deserves   to   be   rejected   under  Order   VII   Rule   11   (d)   of   the   Civil   Procedure  Code.

12. In   that   view   of   the   matter,   the   impugned   order  passed   by   the   Trial   Court   deserves   to   be   set  Page 7 of 8 HC-NIC Page 7 of 8 Created On Sun Oct 01 16:17:50 IST 2017 C/CRA/384/2014 ORDER aside and is hereby set aside. The plaint of the  Civil Suit being No.805 of 2006 is rejected under  Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code.  Present Civil Revision Application stands allowed  accordingly. Rule is made absolute. 

(BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.) Tuvar Page 8 of 8 HC-NIC Page 8 of 8 Created On Sun Oct 01 16:17:50 IST 2017