The Supreme Court has held that limitation arises from the date of knowledge of essential facts when a suit for cancellation of a sale deed is opposed through an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. The Court set aside the order of the Gujarat High Court after observing that there was no justification for the High Court to hold that the limitation period commences from the date of registration itself. The Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra observed, “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..” Senior Advocate Nikhil Goel represented the Appellants, while Senior Advocate Purvish Jitendra Malkan appeared for the Respondents.
he Appellants had instituted a suit for cancellation of an alleged registered sale deed in 2004, which they executed by conveying the plaint scheduled property in favour of the respondents in 2017. It was alleged that the said sale deed was brought through fraudulent means and the Appellants came to know of it only in 2017, when the Deputy Collector issued notice to the Appellants on an application filed by the Respondents for correcting the revenue entries. The Respondents filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC on the grounds that the suit was barred by limitation as the registered sale deed was executed in 2004 and the suit came to be filed in 2017, after a period of 13 years.
The Trial Court dismissed the suit as not maintainable under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. The First Appellate Court held that the Trial Court neither verified, nor could find a single document to suggest that the Appellants were aware of the execution of the sale deed in the year 2004. Challenging the decision of the First Appellate Court, the Respondents filed a second appeal before the High Court. By the order impugned, the High Court allowed the second Appeal. The Supreme Court noted that the tone and tenor of the High Court’s judgment suggested that the High Court was proceeding to decide the case on merits rather than an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. “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,” it remarked.
The Bench pointed out that since the First Appellate Court stated that the defendants made an application for correcting the revenue records only in the year 2017 and on the said application the plaintiffs were issued notice in 2017 as that was the time when the plaintiffs came to know about the execution of the sale deed, it was under these circumstances that the suit was instituted in the year 2017. The Court also referred to its decision in Chhotanben v. Kirtibhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar (2018) where a suit for cancellation of sale deed was opposed through an application under Order 7 Rule 11 on grounds of limitation. It was held, “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.”
Consequently, the Court held, “In view of the above, we allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court in Second Appeal No.53 of 2024 and we restore the judgment of the First Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No.6 of 2022.” Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal. Cause Title: Daliben Valjibhai & Ors. v. Prajapati Kodarbhai Kachrabhai & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 1049) Appearance: Appellants: Senior Advocate Nikhil Goel; Advocates Pradhuman Gohil, Alapati Sahithya Krishna, Hetvi K. Patel, Rushabh N. Kapadia, Siddharth Singh and Siddhi Gupta; AOR Taruna Singh Gohil Respondents: Senior Advocate Purvish Jitendra Malkan; Advocates Jigar Gadhvi, Dharita Malkan, Alok Kumar and Rajesh Udit Singh; AOR Khushboo Aakash Shet