2022 (3) TMI 1544 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court reverses High Court decision on suit for declaration under Transfer of Property Act

Biswanath Banik and Ors. Versus Sulanga Bose and Ors.

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court's decision to reject the plaint on the grounds of limitation and maintainability of a suit for a declaration ... Refusal to reject the plaint in exercise of powers Under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - rejection mainly on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation - rejection also on the ground that a suit for a declaration simpliciter Under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act would not be maintainable as against the actual owner. Whether the suit can be said to be barred by limitation or not? - HELD THAT:- At this stage, what is required to be considered is the averments in the plaint. Only in a case where on the face of it, it is seen that the suit is barred by limitation, then and then only a plaint can be rejected Under Order VII Rule 11(d) Code of Civil Procedure on the ground of limitation. At this stage what is required to be considered is the averments in the plaint. For the aforesaid purpose, the Court has to consider and read the averments in the plaint as a whole. As observed and held by this Court in the case of Ram Prakash Gupta [2007 (10) TMI 715 - SUPREME COURT], rejection of a plaint Under Order VII Rule 11(d) Code of Civil Procedure by reading only few lines and passages and ignoring the other relevant parts of the plaint is impermissible. From the aforesaid decision and even otherwise as held by this Court in a catena of decisions, while considering an application Under Order VII Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure, the Court has to go through the entire plaint averments and cannot reject the plaint by reading only few lines/passages and ignoring the other relevant parts of the plaint. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Ram Prakash Gupta to the facts of the case on hand and on going through the entire plaint averments, it cannot be said at this stage that the suit is barred by limitation on the face of it. While rejecting the plaint, the High Court has also observed and held that the suit for a declaration simpliciter Under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act against the original owner would not be maintainable and for that reliance is placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of Delhi Motor Company [1968 (1) TMI 62 - SUPREME COURT]. However, it is required to be noted that even the Plaintiffs have also prayed for the decree for a permanent injunction claiming to be in possession and the declaration and permanent injunction as such invoking Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. When the suit is for a decree of permanent injunction and it is averred that the Plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property pursuant to the agreement and thereafter, they have developed the land and that they are in continuous possession since more than twelve years and they are also paying taxes to the Corporation, the cause of action can be said to have arisen on the date on which the possession is sought to be disturbed - Whether the Plaintiffs shall be entitled to any relief Under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act or not has to be considered at the time of trial, but at this stage it cannot be said that the suit for the relief sought Under Section 53A would not be maintainable at all and therefore the plaint is liable to be rejected in exercise of powers Under Order VII Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court has committed a grave error in allowing the application Under Order VII Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure and rejecting the plaint. The High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction in rejecting the plaint while exercising the powers Under Order VII Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable both, on law as well as on facts. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court allowing the C.O. and quashing and setting aside the order passed by the trial court refusing to reject the plaint Under Order VII Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure and consequently rejecting the plaint Under Order VII Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure is hereby quashed and set aside - Appeal allowed. Issues Involved:1. Whether the suit is barred by limitation.2. Whether a suit for a declaration simpliciter under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act is maintainable against the actual owner.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the suit is barred by limitation:The High Court had quashed the trial court's order and rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation. The trial court had initially refused to reject the plaint, but the High Court found that the suit, filed in 2010, was barred by limitation as the cause of action had arisen in 2004. The Supreme Court, however, emphasized that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the court must examine the entire plaint and not just isolated paragraphs. The Supreme Court highlighted that the relevant averments in the plaint indicated that the cause of action arose in August 2010 when the defendants attempted to transfer the property and dispossess the plaintiffs. Therefore, the Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in rejecting the plaint on the ground of limitation without considering the entire plaint.2. Whether a suit for a declaration simpliciter under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act is maintainable against the actual owner:The High Court also held that a suit for a declaration simpliciter under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act was not maintainable against the actual owner, relying on the decision in Delhi Motor Co. v. U.A. Basrurkar. The Supreme Court, however, noted that the plaintiffs had also sought a decree for permanent injunction, claiming to be in possession of the suit property pursuant to an agreement and continuous possession for over twelve years. The Supreme Court stated that when a suit seeks a decree for permanent injunction and the plaintiffs claim possession, the cause of action arises when the possession is disturbed. Thus, the suit for a decree for permanent injunction could not be said to be barred by limitation. The Supreme Court further asserted that whether the plaintiffs are entitled to relief under Section 53A should be determined at trial, and it cannot be concluded at this stage that the suit for relief under Section 53A is not maintainable.Conclusion:The Supreme Court found that the High Court had committed a grave error in allowing the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and rejecting the plaint. The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction, and its judgment was unsustainable both in law and on facts. The Supreme Court quashed the High Court's judgment, restored the trial court's order, and directed the trial to proceed further in accordance with law and on its own merits. The appeal was allowed without any order as to costs.