Gujarat High Court
Jashubhai Ranchodbhai Patel vs Sanjaykumar Kanubhai Dave on 21 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/352/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 352 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
JASHUBHAI RANCHODBHAI PATEL & ORS.
Versus
SANJAYKUMAR KANUBHAI DAVE & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR TATTVAM K PATEL(5455) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,10,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
MR TRILOK J PATEL(658) for the Opponent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 21/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present Civil Revision Application is filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CPC'), at the instance of original defendants Nos. 3 to 12, challenging the order dated 19.04.2024 passed by the 8th Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ahmedabad (Rural), below Exhibit-11 in Regular Civil Suit No. 436 of 2022.
2. The parties will be referred to as per their original positions before the Trial Court.
Page 1 of 33 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 00:05:59 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/352/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025 undefined THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
3. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein are the original plaintiffs of Regular Civil Suit No. 436 of 2022, filed against respondent Nos.3 to 9 as well as the petitioners. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 are original defendant Nos.1 and 2, whereas respondent Nos.5 to 9 are original defendant Nos. 13 to 17.
3.1. The plaintiffs have filed the suit seeking a declaration and injunction and have also challenged the registered sale deed executed by original defendant Nos.1 and 2, who happen to be the aunt/uncles/legal heirs of the uncles of the plaintiffs, in favour of the petitioners/defendants Nos.3 to 7. The defendants appear to have contested the suit by filing their written statement.
3.2. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the father of the plaintiffs, namely, Kanubhai, died on 05.04.1988 and their grandmother, namely, Hiraben, died prior thereto on 11.04.1987. Both died intestate, without executing any Will in Page 2 of 33 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 00:05:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/352/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025 undefined favour of any of their legal heirs. It is further stated that the grandmother - Hiraben, was survived by the father of the plaintiffs, Kanubhai; Chandrashankar; Jitendra; and Virbalaben. 3.3. So, in the suit property, the father of the plaintiffs, i.e., Kanubhai, had a ¼ share by way of succession. Unfortunately, the father of the plaintiffs died on 05.04.1988 and at that time, plaintiff No. 1 was young and plaintiff No. 2 was a minor. The process of mutation entries in the revenue records was undertaken by the family members of the late Hiraben, and thereby, a statement was given before the concerned Revenue Talati on 25.07.1988, wherein details of all legal heirs of the late Hiraben, and so also of the late Kanubhai, were given. Such process of mutation was completed by the issuance of a notice under Section 135D of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, and thereby, mutation entry No. 1077 was mutated in the revenue record, in which the name of the mother of the plaintiffs, being the widow of the late Kanubhai, and so also the names of the plaintiffs, being the sons of Kanubhai, were recorded. For some reason, such Page 3 of 33 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 00:05:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/352/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025 undefined entry was cancelled by the concerned Mamlatdar and, as such, the plaintiffs had no such knowledge or information, as no formal order of cancellation of the entry passed by the Mamlatdar was communicated to/received by the plaintiffs. 3.4. It is further stated in the plaint that in the year 2002, the uncles of the plaintiffs, namely, the late Jitendrabhai with one Manubhai Bapubhai Dave, had prepared one pedigree certificate by submitting false information before the Revenue Officer, Talati-cum-Mantri, Village Lambha, Vatva, District Ahmedabad wherein the name of the mother as well as the plaintiffs were not mentioned, despite the fact that the father of the plaintiffs - late Kanubhai, happened to be a legal heir of the late Hiraben, having ¼ share in the suit property. So, on the basis of such false pedigree certificate, the names of the uncles and aunty of the plaintiffs were mutated, who in turn executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendants Nos. 3 to 7 on 20.07.2004. Later on, defendant No. 3, in his lifetime, entered the names of his legal heirs, i.e., defendant Nos. 7 to 12.
Page 4 of 33 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 00:05:59 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/352/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025 undefined 3.5. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that when one of the uncles of the plaintiffs, Chandrashekar Umiyashankar Dave, died on 17.02.2009, and another uncle, namely, Jitendrabhai, died on 06.07.2018, and when a need arose, defendant No. 2/1, who happens to be the widow of the late Jitendrabhai, applied for a fresh pedigree certificate on 16.07.2020 before the Revenue Authority, wherein the name of the mother of the plaintiffs, who died on 20.11.2014, as well as the plaintiffs were mentioned.
3.6. When the plaintiffs received a notice in that regard from the Revenue Authority in the month of October, 2020, for the first time, the plaintiffs came to know about the previous mutation entries recorded in favour of only the uncles and aunty of the plaintiffs, whereby their names and their mother's name were completely washed out and so also above came to know about sale deed in favour of defendant nos. 3 to 7. According to the plaintiffs, these facts have been suppressed by their uncles and aunty. The plaintiffs objected to such an entry, but due to the prevailing COVID-19 situation Page 5 of 33 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 00:05:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/352/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025 undefined in the year 2020, did not immediately file the suit, but on normalcy returned to society, they have instituted the suit in question. They have also challenged the revenue entries before the higher revenue authorities by way of filing an appeal. 3.7. With these background of facts, the petitioners herein
- defendants Nos. 3 to 12, have preferred the impugned application filed below Exhibit-11 under Order VII, Rule 11(a) and (d) of the CPC. The plaintiffs have objected the impugned application by filing their reply at Exhibit-17, thereby contested the impugned application.
3.8. After hearing the parties at length, the Trial Court, vide its order dated 19.04.2024, rejected the impugned application. Hence, the present Revision Application. SUBMISSION OF THE PETITIONERS/DEFENDANT NOS. 3 TO 12
4. Learned Senior Advocate, Ms. Trusha Patel, with learned Advocate Mr. Tattvam Patel, would submit that the Trial Court has committed a serious error of law while rejecting the impugned application, inasmuch as it has not dealt with any Page 6 of 33 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 00:05:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/352/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025 undefined of the grounds set out in the impugned application and, in that view of the matter, this Court may quash the impugned order.
4.1. Learned Senior Advocate, Ms. Patel, would submit that it is the specific case of the petitioners that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action, inasmuch as the entry which was cancelled in the year 1988 and the entry which stood in favour of the plaintiffs having been cancelled in 1988, and not contested for all these years, there would not be any right that survives in favour of the plaintiffs to question the legality and validity of the sale deed executed in favour of defendants Nos. 3 to 7 by defendant Nos. 1 and 2.
4.2. Learned Senior Advocate, Ms. Patel, would submit that when the family members of the plaintiffs, i.e., their uncles and aunty, have mutated their names in the revenue records and thereby, executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendants Nos.3 to 7 in the year 2004, and there being surviving entries in their favour, the plaintiffs ought to have questioned such sale deed within three years from its Page 7 of 33 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 00:05:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/352/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025 undefined execution/registration. It is submitted that as per the settled legal position of law, and more particularly as per Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, a party has deemed knowledge of a document, which is a registered one. 4.3. Learned Senior Advocate, Ms. Patel, would further submit that the sale deed was registered in the year 2004, whereas the suit was filed for its cancellation by the plaintiffs in the year 2022; whereby, the suit is hopelessly time-barred, and the impugned application ought to have been allowed by the Trial Court.
4.4. Learned Senior Advocate, Ms. Patel, would submit that by clever drafting and not disclosing the true and correct cause of action would not permit the plaintiffs to maintain the suit which is otherwise not disclosing any cause of action. 4.5. Learned Senior Advocate, Ms. Patel, would further submit that in the case at hand, when defendants Nos. 3 to 7 are having title over the suit land by way of a registered sale deed executed by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in their favour in Page 8 of 33 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 00:05:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/352/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025 undefined the year 2004, the plaintiffs cannot be allowed to question it after about 18 years from its execution/registration. It is submitted that the Trial Court has committed a jurisdictional error by observing that to prove the allegations made in the plaint, evidence is required to be led and, as such, the issue of limitation being a mixed question of law and fact is a completely erroneous and perverse observation made by the Trial Court which requires to be corrected by this Court. 4.6. Learned Senior Advocate, Ms. Patel, would further submit that the plaint is vexatious, just to grab more money from the purchasers of the suit property, who are bona fide purchasers not knowing about any internal dispute between the legal heirs of the late Hiraben. It is submitted that when the Court is satisfied that the claim is vexatious, frivolous, and filed with a mala fide intention just to harass the defendants, such plaint requires to be rejected by exercising powers under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC.
Page 9 of 33 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 00:05:59 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/352/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025 undefined 4.7. To buttress her arguments on the different points raised, learned Senior Advocate Ms. Patel cited the following decisions:-
1. 2024 (0) AIJEL- HC 248768
2. 2024 (0) AIJEL SC 73784
3. 2024 (0) AIJEL HC 249048
4. Civil Revision Application No. 343 of 2019
5. 2023 (0) AIJEL HC 247385
6. Civil Revision Application No. 141 of 2016
7. 2023 (0) AIJEL- HC 250788
9. 2025 (0) AIJEL- HC 250786
10. 2025 (0) AIJEL- HC 250758 LIMITATION:
1. Registration itself is a notice: statement of absence of knowledge, would not help the plaintiff.
(i) 2024 (1) GLH 513
(ii) SA273.17: 15.10.18: Para: 56-59. 31
(iii) 2019 4 GLR 2990
(iv) FA3386/17
v) 2022 AIJEL_HC 244439
2. Limitation starts from accrual of first cause of action:
(i) 2011 9 SCC 126
(ii) 2013 1 LR 51
(iii) AIR 2020 SC 3310: PARA:14
(iv) 1991 4 SCC 1 POINT NOT RAISED IN APPLICATION CAN BERAISED IN CRA FOR REJECTION:
1. Application is not required: 2024 AIJEL SC73784 Page 10 of 33 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 00:05:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/352/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025 undefined
2. New point can be raised for rejection of plaint in CRA:
2019.2GLH 559: 20 civil revision 136 to 139 of 2019: 18.6.2019, FA 1916.17: 6.11.17
3. Court's obligation to examine maintainability before admitting the suit CRA 343.19: Para:6.
VEXATIOUS CLAIM-FRIVOLOUS SUIT-PLAINT BE REJECTED.
(i) 2020 7 SCC 366
(ii) 2021 14 SCC 51
(iii) 2023 (0) ALJEL-HC 245934
(iv) 2023 (0) AlJEL-HC 247117 FOUNDATIONAL RELIEF IS NOT SOUGHT-PLAINT BE REJECTED:
(i) 2007 5 SCC 614
(ii) AIR 2008 SC 2033
(iii) Civil Appeal 6733/2022: 23.9.22
(iv) 2023 (0) AIJEL-HC 247117 CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF IS NOT SOUGHT- PLAINT BE REJECTED.
(i) 1973 2 SCC 60
(ii) 1983 GLH (UJ) 70
(iii) CONTRA: 1997 1 GLH 841
(iv) CRA 70.16: PARA:13.1 4.8. Making the above submissions, learned Senior Advocate Ms.Patel would request this Court to allow the present Civil Revision Application.
SUBMISSION OF THE RESPONDENTS-PLAINTIFFS
5. Per contra, learned Advocate Mr. Trilok Patel appearing for the original plaintiffs would submit that the present Page 11 of 33 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 00:05:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/352/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025 undefined revision application is nothing but an attempt to defeat the rights of the plaintiffs without allowing them to prove their case on its merits by leading evidence; as such, the Trial Court has, after considering the averments made in the plaint, correctly rejected the impugned application. 5.1. Learned Advocate Mr. Patel would submit that the questions, which are raised by the petitioners herein in their impugned application in relation to the issue of limitation, cannot be decided without the recording of evidence, inasmuch as it is required to be proved on record as to whether the plaintiffs had any knowledge about the preparation of the pedigree certificate by their uncles and aunty in the year 2002, wherein their names were not mentioned, and on the basis of that, mutated their names in the revenue record and, on the strength of such mutation, sold the suit land in favour of defendants Nos. 3 to 7. It is submitted that such fact cannot be presumed by the Court, inasmuch as, as per the settled legal position of law, while Page 12 of 33 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 00:05:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/352/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025 undefined adjudicating an application filed under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC, the Court cannot travel beyond the plaint. 5.2. Learned Advocate Mr. Patel would submit that, ordinarily, the issue of limitation is always considered as a mixed question of law and fact, and in the rarest of the rare case, it can be taken into account while adjudicating an application filed under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC. 5.3. Learned Advocate Mr. Patel would further submit that it is an undisputed fact that the father of the plaintiffs - late Kanubhai, had a ¼ share in the suit property, but due to the fraudulent and mischievous acts on the part of the uncles/aunty of the plaintiffs, despite knowing such fact, the names of the plaintiffs were not mentioned in the pedigree of late Hiraben, who is the grandmother of the plaintiffs, whereby they have sold the suit land in favour of defendants Nos. 3 to 7 in the year 2004. It is submitted that such execution of the sale deed by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of defendant Nos. 3 to 7 was not within the knowledge of the plaintiffs at the relevant point in time, but they Page 13 of 33 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 00:05:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/352/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025 undefined gathered such knowledge only in the year, 2020 when defendant No. 2/1, who happens to be the wife of an uncle of the plaintiffs, applied for a fresh pedigree certificate of late Hiraben - the grandmother of the plaintiffs, and on getting such information, after the COVID-19 period got over, filed the suit, which cannot be said to be time-barred. 5.4. Learned Advocate Mr. Patel would further submit that the plaintiffs have disclosed the cause of action in the plaint, inasmuch as they have claimed their right in the suit property as legal heirs of late Kanubhai, who undisputedly had a ¼ share in the suit property, being Class-I legal heir of late Hiraben. It is submitted that as per the settled legal position of law, when the suit discloses a cause of action, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11(a) of the CPC. As such, there is no requirement under the law that the plaintiffs must have cause of action.
5.5. Learned Advocate Mr. Patel would further submit that it is highly improper on the part of the petitioners to state that the plaint is vexatious, mala fide, and filed with an Page 14 of 33 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 00:05:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/352/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025 undefined oblique motive to frustrate the sale deed executed by the other branch of legal heirs of late Hiraben in favour of defendants Nos. 3 to 7. As such, the plaintiffs remained in the dark and were never informed about such mutation entry made in the year 2002 or in the year 2004 when the sale deed was completed, as there is nothing on record as such to suggest that the plaintiffs had knowledge about such entry and the execution of the sale deed in the years 2002 and 2004, respectively.
5.6. Learned Advocate Mr. Patel would submit that as per the settled legal position of law, when there are disputed questions of fact and law involved in the suit, such suits cannot be thrown out without giving a chance to the plaintiffs to lead evidence to prove their case.
5.7. To buttress his arguments, learned Advocate Mr. Patel would rely upon the following decisions:-
(i) Chhotanben And Another Versus Kiritbhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar And Others, 2018 (6) SCC 422, Page 15 of 33 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 00:05:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/352/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025 undefined
(ii) Маніратвнai Ramabhai Thakor V. Deceased Vinubhai Shamalbhai Thakarda And Ors., 2017 4 GLR 3160;
(iii) Kiritbhai Dahyabhai Patel & Ors. V. Gujarat Eco Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 2020 3 GLR 1809;
(iv) Bahadurbhai Laljibhai Malhotra V. Ambalal Joitaram Heir Of Joitaram Ranchhoddas & Ors., 2015 3 GLR 2760;
(v) M/S. Pramukh Infrastructure, A Partnership Firm V. Jashiben D/O. Mohanbhai Manabhai Prajapati And Ors, 2014 5 GLR 4538.
5.8. Making the above submissions, learned Advocate Mr. Patel would request this Court to reject the present application.
6. Heard learned Senior Advocate Ms. Trusha Patel with learned Advocate Mr. Tattvam Patel for the petitioners and learned Advocate Mr. Trilok Patel for the respondents.
7. No other and further submissions were made. POINT FOR DETERMINATION
8. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is there any gross error of law or jurisdictional error committed by the Trial Court while rejecting the impugned application Page 16 of 33 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 00:05:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/352/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025 undefined filed by the petitioners - defendant Nos. 3 to 12 under Order VII, Rule 11(a) and (d) of the CPC?
ANALYSIS
9. The facts, which are noted hereinabove, not in dispute. It is an undisputed fact that the plaintiffs are Class-I legal heirs of late Kanubhai, who was son of late Hiraben, she died intestate prior to the death of the late Kanubhai. The late Hiraben was survived by three sons and one daughter and, as such, in the year 1988, an exercise was undertaken by her legal heirs, including the plaintiffs and their mother, to get their names mutated in the revenue record, which was in fact mutated by way of entry No. 1077. For some reason, such entry was cancelled by the concerned Mamlatdar, but there is nothing on record to remotely suggest that such cancellation of the entry by the Mamlatdar was either communicated to/received by the plaintiffs or that they had knowledge of the cancellation of such entry.
Page 17 of 33 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 00:05:59 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/352/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025 undefined
10. Be that as it may, merely because the aforesaid entry was cancelled by the Mamlatdar would not ipso facto abrogate the right of the plaintiffs to claim an interest in the suit property, as their father undisputedly had a ¼ share in the suit property, being Class-I legal heir of the late Hiraben, who was the original owner of the suit property.
11. For some reason, again, some of the legal heirs of late Hiraben, i.e., the uncles/aunty of the plaintiffs, had prepared a pedigree certificate by not giving complete details of all the legal heirs of late Hiraben, i.e., they left out the names of the plaintiffs and their mother, which was happened in the year, 2002. On the basis of such pedigree certificate, an entry was mutated in favour of only the uncles and aunty of the plaintiffs and, on the strength of it, they have sold the suit property in favour of defendants Nos. 3 to 7 in the year 2004 by way of registered sale deed. It is not even the case of the defendants, and even if it so, it cannot be gone into at this stage, that any notices were issued to and received by the plaintiffs as regards the mutation of the names of their uncles/ Page 18 of 33 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 00:05:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/352/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025 undefined aunty or of defendants Nos. 3 to 7 in the years 2002 and 2004, respectively. This would be purely disputed question of fact which needs to be examined by the Trial Court when evidence led by the parties to prove such a fact.
12. It is a well-settled legal position of law that while adjudicating an application filed under Order VII, Rule 11(a) and (d) of the CPC, the Trial Court cannot travel beyond what is stated in the plaint. At the same time, if by clever drafting an illusory cause of action is stated by the plaintiff in the plaint, and from bare reading of the plaint, either not disclose any cause of action or it is hopelessly time-barred, on the basis of it, such plaint requires to be rejected. Such frivolous litigation requires to be nipped in the bud at the earliest.
13. There are several disputed questions of fact and law germane in the plaint which require to be proved by the plaintiffs/defendants leading their appropriate evidence. The impugned application is nothing but a misconceived application filed at the instance of defendants Nos. 3 to 12, who want to scuttle the suit at the threshold without Page 19 of 33 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 00:05:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/352/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025 undefined permitting the plaintiffs to lead their evidence to prove the allegations made in the plaint.
14. There are several authorities cited by learned Senior Advocate Ms. Trusha Patel in support of her submission, which consumed the precious time of this Court, but when this Court confronted her with the recent decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Daliben Valjibhai and Ors vs. Prajapati Kodarbhai Kachrabhai and Anr. reported as 2024 INSC 1049, learned Senior Advocate Ms. Patel was not in a position to counter it but only replied that there are other decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court taking contrary views.
15. This Court is not at all in impressed with any of the submissions so canvassed by learned Senior Advocate Ms. Patel, inasmuch as the issue germane in the present revision application is squarely covered by the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Daliben (supra). Page 20 of 33 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 00:05:59 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/352/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025 undefined
16. To better understand the controversy, which was somewhat similar to that existed in the case of Daliben (supra), the Honourable Supreme Court has observed and held as under:-
"[7] From the tone and tenor of the judgment of the High Court, it appears that the High Court was proceeding to decide the case on merits, rather than an application under Order 7 Rule 11. The High Court referred to and extracted relevant portions of large number of precedents on the subject of Order 7 Rule 11, of the same High Court as well as the decisions of this Court. Having recorded the principle that operation and impact of Order 7 Rule 11, being a drastic remedy, Courts must adhere to the discipline of confining their scrutiny to the plaint averments, the High Court however proceeded to consider other aspects of the matter. The fact that the High Court relied on and has in fact drawn inferences that were possible only after a trial is evident from the following findings:
(i) By virtue of the definition of the expression "a person is said to have notice" under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, coupled with the explanation I, the plaintiff has the burden to prove and establish that he had no knowledge of the sale deed.
(ii) In the normal course, nobody will wait for 13 years to institute a suit for cancellation of the sale deed. It is normal to expect any plaintiff to have made some enquiry about the execution of the sale deed
(iii) The First Appellate Court has wrongly shifted the burden on to the defendant, when it is for the plaintiffs to show that they were not aware of the execution of the sale deed in the year 2004.
(iv) The "plaintiff willfully abstained from inquiry which he ought to have made" when the Deputy Collector in RTS issued notice to him.
(v) Mere usage of the expression 'fraud' in the pleading is not sufficient. The plaintiff must have given details with material particulars of the fraud alleged. When a plaintiff bases his case on fraud committed by the defendant, there is an obligation to plead the details of Page 21 of 33 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 00:05:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/352/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025 undefined the said fraud. The essential particulars of such fraud are missing in the plaint.
(vi) Further, the particulars of the alleged fraud must be prima facie enough to rebut the presumption of the validity of a sale deed under Sections 34 and 35 of the Registration Act. No such details are available in the plaint.
(vii) Once a document is registered under the Registration Act, the date of registration becomes the date of deemed knowledge.
(viii) Though Article 59 of the Limitation Act enables institution of a suit to cancel or set aside an instrument within a period of 3 years, from the date of knowledge, the bar of limitation cannot be saved by simply pleading fraud.
[8] For the reasons stated above, the High Court proceeded to allow the second appeal and set aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court and restored the order of the Trial Court, rejecting the plaint and dismissing the suit. This is how the appellants are before us.
[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 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. [11] This Court had to deal with a similar situation in P.V. Guru Raj Reddy v. P. Neeradha Reddy, 2015 8 SCC 331.. A suit instituted by the plaintiff in the year 2002 for cancellation of sale deed of year 1979 on the ground that the knowledge of fraud was acquired only in 1999, was objected to by the defendant in an application under Page 22 of 33 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 00:05:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/352/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025 undefined Order 7 Rule 11 on the ground that it is barred by limitation. This Court held:
"5. Rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC is a drastic power conferred in the court to terminate a civil action at the threshold. The conditions precedent to the exercise of power under Order 7 Rule 11, therefore, are stringent and have been consistently held to be so by the Court. It is the averments in the plaint that have to be read as a whole to find out whether it discloses a cause of action or whether the suit is barred under any law. At the stage of exercise of power under Order 7 Rule 11, the stand of the defendants in the written statement or in the application for rejection of the plaint is wholly immaterial. It is only if the averments in the plaint ex facie do not disclose a cause of action or on a reading thereof the suit appears to be barred under any law the plaint can be rejected. In all other situations, the claims will have to be adjudicated in the course of the trial.
6. In the present case, reading the plaint as a whole and proceeding on the basis that the averments made therein are correct, which is what the Court is required to do, it cannot be said that the said pleadings ex facie disclose that the suit is barred by limitation or is barred under any other provision of law. The claim of the plaintiffs with regard to the knowledge of the essential facts giving rise to the cause of action as pleaded will have to be accepted as correct. At the stage of consideration of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 the stand of the defendants in the written statement would be altogether irrelevant."
(emphasis supplied) [12] Further, in Chhotanben v. Kirtibhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar, (2018) 6 SCC 422 where again a suit for cancellation of sale deed was opposed through an application under Order 7 Rule 11, on ground of limitation, this Court specifically held that limitation in all such cases will arise from date of knowledge. The relevant portion is as follows:
"15. What is relevant for answering the matter in issue in the context of the application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC, 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 Page 23 of 33 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 00:05:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/352/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025 undefined 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 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 (1/2) 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.
........
19. In the present case, we find that the appellant- plaintiffs have asserted that the suit was filed immediately after getting knowledge about the fraudulent sale deed executed by original Defendants 1 and 2 by keeping them in the dark about such execution and within two days from the refusal by the original Defendants 1 and 2 to refrain from obstructing the peaceful enjoyment of use and possession of the ancestral property of the appellants. We affirm the view taken by the trial court that the issue regarding the suit being barred by limitation in the facts of the present case, is a triable issue and for which reason the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold in exercise of the power under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC."
(emphasis supplied) [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 Page 24 of 33 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 00:05:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/352/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025 undefined view of the matter the judgment of the High Court is unsustainable."
(emphasis supplied)
17. In my view, the submissions which were made by Senior Advocate Ms. Patel, run counter to what is held by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of Daliben (supra), inasmuch as, in clear terms, the Supreme Court held that the limitation period does not commence from the date of registration of sale deed itself. Thus, merely because a registered sale deed was executed in favour of defendants Nos. 3 to 7 in the year 2004, it cannot be deduced that there is deemed knowledge of the registration of such deed to the plaintiffs.
18. As such, when there is a direct pronouncement of judgment by the Honourable Supreme Court answering the issue as regards deemed knowledge by taking note of Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, nothing more is to be referred to or decided by this Court.
19. Nonetheless, it would also apt to refer the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court, in the case Bahadurbhai Page 25 of 33 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 00:05:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/352/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025 undefined Laljibhai Malhotra vs. Ambalal Joitaram Heir of Joitaram Ranchhoddas and Ors. reported in 2015 (3) GLR 2760, while interpreting Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and as such, while examined the similar type of application filed under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC, held thus:
"[13] Upon perusal of the said portion of section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, it can be seen that knowledge of a fact is attributed to a person either when he actually knows that fact, or when, but for wilful abstention from an inquiry or search, he ought to have made, or gross negligence, he would have known it. Explanation to the said clause interalia provides that 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 thereof, or share or interest in, such property shall be deemed to have notice of such instrument as from the date of registration. This is subject to the conditions provided in provisios contained to the said explanation. Explanation 1 thus refers to deemed notice and relates to the notice of instrument relating to a transaction of immovable property which is required by law and has also been so registered and such deemed knowledge is imputed to the person acquiring such property or any share or interest in such property. Such provision therefore, cannot be applied in case of a subsequent sale of an immovable property to impute deemed knowledge of such transaction on the erstwhile purchaser/owner merely on the strength of section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act unless facts and attendant circumstances suggest that the person in question was reasonably expected to make search or inquiry which he failed to do, thus suggesting willful act, negligence or lack of due diligence i.e. prudence, expected of a reasonable man. Any such interpretation being quite contrary to the language used in the provision, would also put an unreasonable onus on a owner or a purchaser of an immovable property to be constantly vigilant and apprise himself of any subsequent registered transaction with respect to such immovable property or face unpleasant consequences of his challenge to a totally invalid or even a fraudulent or a bogus sale deed being barred by law of limitation after the statutory period commencing from the date of registration on the principle of deemed knowledge.Page 26 of 33 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 00:05:59 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/352/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025 undefined In plain terms said provision of section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act applies in case of a person acquiring an immovable property or a share or interest therein of a transaction which would be an existing and not a future transaction which by law is required and indeed been registered.
[14] In case of Tilakdhari Lal and another v. Khedan Lal and others, 1921 AIR(PC) 112, the Privy Council noted with approval observations in case of Lakshmandas Sarupchand v. Dasrat,1880 6 Bom 168 and held as under :
"This decision depended in part upon the consideration of whether registration was equivalent to possession, every subsequent purchaser being deemed to have notice of such title as a person in possession may possess, but in the main it followed a statement of Mr. Justice Storey as to the law in America that the registration of a conveyance operates as constructive notice to all subsequent purchasers of any estate legal or equitable in the same property. It is important to observe that in that case the real question as to notice did not necessarily arise for determination, since the point that was there determined was whether an unregistered mortgage that was optionally registerable was overridden by a mortgage subsequent in date which was compulsorily registerable and was in fact registered. It was decided that it was not, since the registration of the subsequent deed could not operate as notice to the earlier mortgagee at the date when he took his mortgage. None the less, the very careful and exhaustive judgment of the learned Judges upon the point demands close attention."
In the later portion of the judgement it was held as under :
"After giving all the authorities quoted the fullest consideration, in their Lordships' opinion the true position was best stated in the quotation made from the judgments of Mr. Justice Brett, Mr. Justice Mittra, and Sir Lawrence Jenkins. The real purpose of registration is to secure that every person dealing with property, where such dealings require registration, may rely with confidence upon the statements contained in the register as a full and complete account of all transactions by which his title may be affected, unless indeed he has actual notice of some unregistered transaction which may be valid apart from registration. In England such notice would prevent the registered document having priority over that which was unregistered. In India this would not be the result if it were a mortgage for over Rs. 100 or if the unregistered document was one brought within the provisions of Section 49 of the Registration Act. In either case the object of registration is to Page 27 of 33 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 00:05:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/352/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025 undefined protect against prior transactions. If, however, the view contended for by the appellants be correct, it has a more extended effect. If after a first mortgage has been obtained a second mortgage were registered and the mere tact of registration constituted notice, the first mortgagee would be bound to search the register before he dealt with the proceeds of the mortgage. Such an extension would go beyond even the dictum of Chief Justice Storey, who expressly limited the doctrine of notice to notice of previous transactions."
[15] In case of Parbhu Lal v. Chattar and others, 1925 AIR(All) 557, Learned Single Judge held and observed as under :
"Two points have been taken in the memorandum of appeal, The first is that registration is notice. This point has been fully and finally settled by the case of Tilakdhari Lal v. Khedan Lal, 1921 AIR(PC) 112, by their Lordships of the Privy Council, who held that a registration of subsequent transactions was no notice to persons who were parties to earlier transactions. In the case before their Lordships of the Privy Council it was urged that a prior mortgagee should be charged with the notice of a subsequent registered transfer. Their Lordships repelled the argument. On the same principle it cannot be said that the original mortgagors would have notice of the transfer in favour of their respective plaintiffs merely by reason of the fact that the transfers in their favour were registered. This argument therefore fails."
[22] In case of Dilboo (SMT) (Dead) by Lrs. and others also relied by Shri Gandhi, the facts were that the plaintiffs had filed the suit for redemption of a mortgage created by persons whom they claimed to be their predecessors. In the meantime, suit property was sold once again. Without challenging such sale deed, the suit for redemption of mortgage was filed. It was in this background the Supreme Court held that suit was barred by limitation. Following observations made in the process need to be noted :
"Thus a Suit for redemption of mortgage could be filed within 60 years. But if the mortgagee had created an interest in excess of the right enjoyed by him then to recover possession against the third party the Suit had to be filed within 12 years of the transfer becoming known to the plaintiff. The rational in cutting down the period of 60 years to 12 years is clear. The 60 years period is granted as a mortgagee always remains a mortgagee and thus the rights remain the same. However when an interest in excess of the interest of the mortgagee is created then the third party is not claiming under the mortgagee. The position of such a person could not be worse Page 28 of 33 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 00:05:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/352/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025 undefined than that of a rank trespasser who was in open and hostile possession.
As the title of the rank trespasser would get perfected by adverse possession on expiry of 12 years so also the title of such transferee would get perfected after 12 years. The period of 12 years has to run from the date of knowledge by the plaintiff of such transfer. 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 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."
[23] It is true that in the said case, the Supreme Court did apply the principle of deemed knowledge on a plaintiff who claimed to be having preexisting right when the suit land was subsequently sold. However, such observations cannot be read in isolation and cannot be seen as the Court laying down a ratio that in case of every registered instrument of transfer of immovable property, the world at large would be deemed to have notice of such transaction and period of limitation to question legality thereof would commence from the date of registration of the instrument. In fact the Supreme Court adopted the analogy and applied the principles flowing from section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act in facts of the case where the plaintiffs could and ought to have discovered with due diligence regarding the subsequent sale transaction. It was in this context the Supreme Court held that in absence of any averment or proof to show that the suit is within time, the plaintiff would fail. It was further observed that when a document is registered the date of registration becomes the date of deemed knowledge and 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. Thus even in case of a registered document, to any situations which are not covered under section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, it is always open for the plaintiff to point out as to the manner and source of knowledge of the transaction and to establish that such fact could not have been discovered by due diligence and that Page 29 of 33 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 00:05:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/352/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025 undefined therefore, the plaintiff cannot be attributed deemed knowledge of the offending transaction."
(emphasis supplied)
20. Thus, in my view, the present suit is neither hopelessly time-barred, nor at this stage, it has been successfully proved by defendants on record that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action, rather it can be gainsaid that the plaint is vexatious thereby, requires it to be nipped in the bud at the threshold.
21. Having appreciated the entire set of facts, evidence, and averments made in the plaint, and so also after appreciating the submissions canvassed by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, I am of the view that the issues which are raised by the defendants in their impugned application are issues, which require to be adjudicated by permitting the parties to lead their evidence to prove them on the record.
22. Thus, no case is made out by defendants Nos. 3 to 12, and accordingly, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11(a) and (d) of the CPC.
Page 30 of 33 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 00:05:59 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/352/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025 undefined
23. At this stage, I would like to observe that the learned Senior advocate cited several authorities in support of their submissions, but have not taken the pain to correlate the facts of each case under which decisions have been delivered by the Honourable Supreme Court or this Court vis-à-vis the facts germane in the present case.
24. It is a settled legal position of law that a judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved, or remained to be proved, as one additional fact or different fact can make a world of difference between the questions in two cases, even when the same principles are applied in each case to similar facts.
25. It would be apposite to refer to and rely upon a pertinent observation of the Honourable Supreme Court on the applicability of ratio decidendi vis-à-vis drawing a final conclusion by the Court while delivering any decision in case of Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited Versus Delhi Metro Rail Corporation reported in (2022) 9 SCC 286, wherein, it has been held thus:
Page 31 of 33 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 00:05:59 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/352/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025 undefined "[30] We may gainfully refer to the three-judge Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India and others vs. Dhanwanti Devi and others, 1996 6 SCC 44 , wherein this Court has observed thus:
"9. ....Every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved, or assumed to be proved, since the generality of the expressions which may be found there is not intended to be exposition of the whole law, but governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found..."
[31] It can thus clearly be seen that every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved, or assumed to be proved. The generality of the expressions which are found in a judgment cannot be considered to be intended to be exposition of the whole law. They will have to be governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found.
[32] It will also be apposite to refer to the following observation of another three-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of The Regional Manager and another vs. Pawan Kumar Dubey, 1976 3 SCC 334 :
"7. .....Even where there appears to be some conflict, it would, we think, vanish when the ratio decidendi of each case is correctly understood. It is the rule deducible from the application of law to the facts and circumstances of a case which constitutes its ratio decidendi and not some conclusion based upon facts which may appear to be similar. One additional or different fact can make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases even when the same principles are applied in each case to similar facts."
[33] This Court has held that the ratio decidendi is the rule deducible from the application of law to the facts and circumstances of a case which constitutes its ratio decidendi and not some conclusion based upon facts which may appear to be similar. It has been held that one additional or different fact can make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases even when the same principles are applied in each case to similar facts "
(emphasis supplied)
26. So, considering the aforesaid principles, and having kept them in mind, when the facts of the present case are considered and the ratio deduced from the decision of the Page 32 of 33 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 00:05:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/352/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025 undefined Honourable Supreme Court of India in Daliben (supra), Chhottanben (supra), and Bahadurbhai (Supra) are applied herein, then the application cannot be allowed. CONCLUSION
27. In light of what has been observed and discussed hereinabove, and as such, in view of the ratio of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Daliben (supra), Chhottanben (supra), and so also, Bahadurbhai (Supra), I am of the view that there is no gross error of law and / or any jurisdictional error committed by the Trial Court while rejecting the impugned application.
28. In view of the aforesaid conclusion, the present revision application lacks merit, requires to be rejected, and is hereby rejected, albeit with no order as to costs.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J) MOHD MONIS Page 33 of 33 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 00:05:59 IST 2025