2023 (4) TMI 1463 - SC - Indian Laws

Dispute over alleged 1953 partition deed error; suit seen as time-barred, plaint rejected under Order VII Rule 11

The dominant issue was whether the plaint disclosed a real cause of action or was barred by limitation so as to warrant rejection under Order VII Rule ... Rejection of application submitted by the appellants, original defendant Nos. 9 & 10 under Order VII Rule XI of CPC - 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 - HELD THAT:- In the case of Ram Singh Vs. Gram Panchayat Mehal Kalan [1986 (9) TMI 427 - SUPREME COURT] 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. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decision on the applicability of Order VII Rule XI to the facts of the case on hand, it is opined that the plaint ought to have been rejected in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule XI(a) and (d) of CPC being vexatious, illusory cause of action and barred by limitation. By clever drafting and not asking any relief with respect to partition deed dated 11.03.1953, the plaintiffs have tried to circumvent the provision of limitation act and have tried to maintain the suit which is nothing but abuse of process of court and the law. Now, so far as the reliance placed on the decision of the Privy Council referred to hereinabove and on the decision of this Court in the case of Subhaga (supra) are concerned, there cannot be any dispute with respect to the proposition of law laid down in the aforesaid two decisions. However, the question is the suit being barred by limitation and the illusory cause of action. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and that of the learned Trial Court rejecting the application under Order VII Rule XI are unsustainable and the same deserve to be quashed and set aside and are accordingly, quashed and set aside - Consequently, the application submitted by the appellants – original defendant Nos. 9 and 10 to reject the plaint in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule XI(a) and (d) of the CPC is hereby allowed and consequently, the plaint of Civil Suit is ordered to be rejected. Appeal allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED (i) Whether, on a meaningful reading of the plaint alone, the suit disclosed a real cause of action, or whether it was vexatious and based on an illusory cause of action created by clever drafting, warranting rejection under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC. (ii) Whether the suit, though framed as a declaration of title and cancellation of later instruments, was in substance a challenge to the registered partition deed of 11.03.1953 (and its consequential transactions) and was therefore barred by limitation, requiring rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue (i): Rejection for non-disclosure of cause of action / illusory cause of action (Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC) Legal framework: The Court applied the principle that, for Order VII Rule 11, the plaint must be read meaningfully as a whole; if it is manifestly vexatious and meritless, or if clever drafting creates only the illusion of a cause of action, the plaint is liable to be rejected at the threshold. Interpretation and reasoning: From the plaint averments, the Court found the suit to be founded on the premise that the partition deed contained an error in the survey number and that, on that basis, the predecessors of the defendants had no right to deal with the property. Yet, despite this being the foundational assertion, the plaintiffs deliberately did not seek any relief concerning the partition deed (or the subsequent gift deed through which title flowed), and instead sought declaration and cancellation of later documents. The Court treated this as clever drafting designed to create an appearance of an actionable claim without directly assailing the true source of title that had been acted upon for decades. Conclusion: The plaint was held to be vexatious and to disclose only an illusory cause of action; rejection under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC was warranted. Issue (ii): Rejection as barred by limitation (Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC) due to virtual challenge to the 1953 partition Legal framework: The Court proceeded on the basis that a plaint must be rejected where, from its own averments, the suit appears barred by law, including limitation; a plaintiff cannot circumvent limitation by omitting necessary reliefs while seeking consequential reliefs that effectively reopen a time-barred transaction. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that the entire suit, though framed as targeting later sale deeds and a later partition deed, virtually sought to unsettle the registered partition deed of 11.03.1953 by alleging a mistake in the survey number and asserting that those claiming through one allottee had no right to transact. The plaint itself showed that the 1953 partition was acted upon and followed by subsequent dealings, including a registered gift deed and later sales, with possession continuing with purchasers since 2010. In substance, therefore, the plaintiffs' challenge was directed to the 1953 partition arrangement, but the suit was instituted after a lapse of 61 years from that deed. The Court concluded that avoiding a prayer concerning the 1953 partition was an impermissible attempt to circumvent limitation, rendering the suit barred on the plaint's own showing. Conclusion: The suit was held barred by limitation and liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. Result: The Court set aside the orders refusing rejection and allowed the application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC, directing rejection of the plaint.