Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3.2 It is further submitted that the High Court has not properly appreciated the fact that in fact, the suit was barred by limitation as the same was instituted 61 years after the execution of partition deed dated 11.03.1953. 3.3 It is further submitted that the High Court has failed to take into consideration that the suit of the plaintiffs is essentially based upon the premise that there was an error in partition deed dated 11.03.1953 and therefore, Sarambee and her descendants, including the vendors of the appellants herein, never had any right to effect transactions in respect of land in Survey No. 706/A9. It is submitted that the High Court has not properly appreciated the fact that as such the plaintiffs have cleverly drafted the plaint and intentionally omitted to seek the relief of rectification of partition deed dated 11.03.1953 in order to circumvent the law of limitation. It is submitted that as such by clever drafting the plaintiffs have tried to bring the suit within the law of limitation, which is otherwise barred by limitation. 3.4 Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of T. Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC 467, it is prayed that as the plaint is vexatious and meritless and creates illusion of a cause of action by clever drafting the same should be rejected at the earliest. 3.5 It is submitted that if partition deed dated 11.03.1953 was to be challenged, which the plaintiffs are attempting to do virtually, the suit would be hopelessly barred by limitation having being instituted after a lapse of 61 years from the partition deed.

5. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. We have also gone through the averments made in the plaint. On going through the averments, it appears that the suit is essentially based upon the premise that there was an error in partition deed dated 11.03.1953 and in partition deed survey number 706/A9 was wrongly mentioned. Therefore, it is the case on behalf of the plaintiffs that Sarambee and other descendants including the vendors of the appellants never had any right to effect transactions in respect of the land in survey number 706/A9. However, it is required to be noted that despite the above, very cleverly the plaintiffs have not sought any relief with respect to partition deed dated 11.03.1953. Deliberately and purposely, the plaintiffs have not prayed any relief with respect to partition deed dated 11.03.1953 though it is the case on behalf of the plaintiffs that there was an error in partition deed dated 11.03.1953. It is to be noted that pursuant to the partition deed dated 11.03.1953, after the demise of the original land owner Nasyam Jamal Saheb, his five children namely, 1) Nasyam Jafar Saheb; 2) Nasyam Dasthagiri Saheb; 3) Nasyam Ibrahim Saheb; 4) Sarambee; and 5) Jainabee got partitioned the properties under a registered partition deed dated 11.03.1953. Under the registered partition deed, predecessor in interest of plaintiffs, N. Ibrahim Saheb got 1 acre and predecessor in interest of vendors of the appellants Sarambee got 1 acre 16 cents. All the parties to the registered partition deed acted upon the said partition deed. That thereafter, further transaction took place and Sarambee executed a registered gift deed dated 24.01.1968 in favour of her eldest daughter Kareembee – mother of the vendors of the appellants to an extent of lands measuring 58 cents. That thereafter, two sons of Kareebee who became co-owner on the death of Kareembee executed the registered sale deed dated 24.08.2010 in favour of the appellants in Survey No. 706/A9 to an extent of land measuring 58 cents for a valid sale consideration. Since 2010, the appellants are in possession of the land purchased vide registered sale deed dated 24.08.2010. Without challenging partition deed dated 11.03.1953 and even subsequent gift deed dated 24.01.1968, the plaintiffs have instituted the present suit with the aforesaid prayers which is nothing but a clever drafting to get out of the limitation. If partition deed dated 11.03.1953 was to be challenged which as such, the plaintiffs are attempting to do virtually, the suit would be hopelessly barred by limitation having being instituted after lapse of 61 years from the partition deed. 5.1 In the case of T. Arivandandam (supra) in paragraph 5 while considering the provision of Order VII Rule XI, this Court has observed as under: -

“5. We have not the slightest hesitation in condemning the petitioner for the gross abuse of the process of the court repeatedly and unrepentantly resorted to. From the statement of the facts found in the judgment of the High Court, it is perfectly plain that the suit now pending before the First Munsif's Court, Bangalore, is a flagrant misuse of the mercies of the law in receiving plaints. The learned Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful — not formal — reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 CPC. An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits.” 5.2 In the case of Sopan Sukhdeo Sable Vs. Charity Commr., (2004) 3 SCC 137 in paras 11 and 12, this Court has observed and held as under:

The averments in the written statement as well as the contentions of the defendant are wholly immaterial while considering the prayer of the defendant for rejection of the plaint. Even when the allegations made in the plaint are taken to be correct as a whole on their face value, if they show that the suit is barred by any law, or do not disclose cause of action, the application for rejection of plaint can be entertained and the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be exercised. If clever drafting of the plaint has created the illusion of a cause of action, the court will nip it in the bud at the earliest so that bogus litigation will end at the earlier stage.” 5.4 In the case of Ram Singh Vs. Gram Panchayat Mehal Kalan, (1986) 4 SCC 364, this Court observed and held that when the suit is barred by any law, the plaintiff cannot be allowed to circumvent that provision by means of clever drafting so as to avoid mention of those circumstances, by which the suit is barred by law of limitation. Similar view has been expressed by this Court in the case of Raj Narain Sarin (supra).