Court allows appeal, sets aside order, restores suit for adjudication. Amended plaint filed. Respondents to file written statement.

The court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and restored the suit for adjudication on merits. The amended plaint was taken on record, and the respondents were directed to file a written statement to the amended plaint within six weeks. The suit was listed for directions before the Roster Judge. No costs were awarded.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Ownership of the property.
2. Maintainability of the suit for declaration without seeking cancellation of the sale-deed.
3. Bar of limitation.
4. Rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
5. Amendment of the plaint.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Ownership of the Property:
The appellant, a registered society, claimed ownership of 31 bigha of land in Basai Darapur, New Delhi. The land was initially auctioned as evacuee property, and Amir Chand and Brij Lal bid on behalf of the society. They paid the bid amount through adjustments of claims from other associates. A sale-deed was later executed in favor of Matwal Chand, who acted as the Secretary of the society. The appellant argued that Matwal Chand held the property as a trustee for the society.

2. Maintainability of the Suit for Declaration Without Seeking Cancellation of the Sale-deed:
The respondents contended that the suit was not maintainable as it sought only a declaration of ownership without seeking cancellation of the sale-deed dated May 16, 1962, executed by Amir Chand and Brij Lal in favor of Matwal Chand. The court found that the suit was based on the premise that Matwal Chand held the property in trust for the society, and thus, there was no need to seek cancellation of the sale-deed.

3. Bar of Limitation:
The respondents argued that the suit was barred by limitation, highlighting the pleadings in paragraph 21 of the plaint, which mentioned various dates when the cause of action accrued. The court noted that the plaint was poorly drafted, mixing up the cause of action with the accrual of the cause of action. The court clarified that the right to sue accrues when the defendant commits an act causing injury to the plaintiff. Since the property was held in trust, Section 10 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which exempts suits against trustees from being barred by any length of time, applied.

4. Rejection of the Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC:
The respondents filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint on the grounds that the suit was barred by limitation and that it sought a mere declaration without seeking cancellation of the sale-deed. The court found that the learned Single Judge erred in rejecting the plaint based on these grounds. The court emphasized that the substance of the pleadings indicated that the property was held in trust for the society, and thus, the suit was not barred by limitation.

5. Amendment of the Plaint:
The appellant sought to amend the plaint to clarify that the society was in legal possession of the property since 1958 and to expand upon existing pleadings. The learned Single Judge dismissed the application for amendment, citing an admission in the original pleadings that the plaintiff was not in possession of the land. The court found this reasoning incorrect, noting that even admissions in pleadings can be withdrawn if legally sound reasons are provided. The court allowed the amendment of the plaint, emphasizing that the proposed amendments were clarificatory and necessary for a fair adjudication of the case.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order dated February 04, 2015, and restored the suit for adjudication on merits. The amended plaint was taken on record, and the respondents were directed to file a written statement to the amended plaint within six weeks. The suit was listed for directions before the Roster Judge on September 14, 2015. No costs were awarded.

---