TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 1839
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bearing O.S. No. 310 of 2014 before the Principal District Court, Chengalpet, against the respondents / defendants and the Government authorities for the following reliefs: (i) Declaring that the appellant is the legal owner of the suit schedule property, (ii) Issuing a permanent injunction against Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 restraining them from causing any interruption on the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the appellant, (iii) Declaring the sale deed bearing No. 303/1993 dated 10.10.1988 registered in Pudukottai Sub Registration Office, Tuticorin District, in favour of Defendant No. 1 with respect to the suit schedule property as null and void, (iv) Declaring the Settlement Deed bearing No. 1493/2012 dated 16.04.2012 registered in Alandur Sub Registration Office executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant No. 2 with respect to the suit schedule property as null and void, (v) Declaring the General Power of Attorney Deed bearing No. 3725/2012 dated 31.12.2012 registered in Alandur Sub Registration Office executed by Defendant No. 2 in favour of Defendant No. 3 with respect to the suit schedule propert....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appellant filed his objection. In the said circumstances, the appellant came forward with the suit for the reliefs stated supra. 5. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, the respondents / defendants filed an interlocutory application bearing I.A. No. 151 of 2015 in O.S. No. 310 of 2014 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint, on the ground that the suit was undervalued and was barred by limitation. 6. After hearing both sides, the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram District at Chengalpet, by order dated 04.10.2017, dismissed the aforesaid application, observing that the grounds raised by the defendants can only be addressed after conducting a detailed trial based on the material facts, records, and other related issues, and therefore, the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold. Challenging the same, the appellant / plaintiff preferred a Civil Revision Petition bearing No. 131 of 2018 before the High Court. 7. By order dated 03.09.2020, the High Court allowed the aforesaid Civil Revision Petition after having held that the suit was barred by limitation. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant / plaintiff is before us with the pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellant's father to execute a sale deed or enter into a sale agreement. In the absence of such authority, the execution of the sale deed and the settlement deed by the respondents is wholly without jurisdiction and stands vitiated by fraud. 8.3. The learned counsel further pointed out that the appellant has sought the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction by expressly disputing the right, title, and possession claimed by the respondents. The plaint contains specific allegations regarding fraudulent alienation, subsequent encumbrance, and the absence of authority on the part of the appellant's father to effect the transfer of the suit property. These are serious and contested issues that necessitate a detailed adjudication based on oral and documentary evidence. At the threshold stage, it is impermissible for the Court to assess the truth or falsity of these averments or to summarily reject the suit on the ground of limitation. Furthermore, the Additional District Judge, in declining the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC committed no jurisdictional error, as the plaint disclosed triable issues requiring full-fledged trial. However, the High Court while ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arred by limitation. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decisions of this Court in Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali [(2020) 7 SCC 366] and Raghwendra Sharan Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singh(Dead) by LRs [(2020) 16 SCC 601] wherein, it was held that when the foundational facts, as pleaded, squarely attract the bar of limitation, no trial is warranted and the suit is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. That apart, the learned counsel referred to the decision of this Court in Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust and Others v. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle and Another [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3844], wherein, it was clearly held that the spirit and intention of Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC is only for the courts to nip at its bud when any litigation ex-facie appears to be a clear abuse of process. 9.4. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the respondents / defendants being the absolute owners of the property, have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment thereof. However, the appellant, having suppressed material facts, deliberately instituted the suit after an inordinate delay of 26 years. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the High Court rejecting ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iest point of time and hence, the suit instituted by the appellant was barred by limitation. While the trial Court rejected the said application holding that the issue of limitation involved a mixed question of law and fact, the High Court in revision, took a contrary view and allowed the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and rejected the plaint solely on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation. 12.1. However, we are of the considered view that the issue as to whether the appellant had prior notice or reason to be aware of the transaction at an earlier point of time, or whether the plea regarding the date of knowledge is credible, are matters that necessarily require appreciation of evidence. At this preliminary stage, the averments made in the plaint must be taken at their face value and assumed to be true. Once the date of knowledge is specifically pleaded and forms the basis of the cause of action, the issue of limitation cannot be decided summarily. It becomes a mixed question of law and fact, which cannot be adjudicated at the threshold stage under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Therefore, rejection of the plaint on the ground of limitation without permitting ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ishnabhai Prabhudas Thakkar or Defendants 3 to 6. They acquired that knowledge on 26-12-2012 and immediately took steps to obtain a certified copy of the registered sale deed and on receipt thereof they realised the fraud played on them by their brothers concerning the ancestral property and two days prior to the filing of the suit, had approached their brothers (original Defendants 1 and 2) calling upon them to stop interfering with their possession and to partition the property and provide exclusive possession of half (½) portion of the land so designated towards their share. However, when they realised that the original Defendants 1 and 2 would not pay any heed to their request, they had no other option but to approach the court of law and filed the subject suit within two days therefrom. According to the appellants, the suit has been filed within time after acquiring the knowledge about the execution of the registered sale deed. In this context, the trial court opined that it was a triable issue and declined to accept the application filed by Respondent 1-Defendant 5 for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d). That view commends to us. ... ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cannot pick up a few sentences here and there from the plaint and contend that the plaintiffs had constructive notice of the proceedings and that therefore limitation started running from the date of constructive notice. In fact, the plea of constructive notice is raised by the respondents, after asserting positively that the plaintiffs had real knowledge as well as actual notice of the proceedings. In any case, the plea of constructive notice appears to be a subsequent invention." (iii) Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. v. Central Bank of India & Another [(2020) 17 SCC 260] "6. The central question is: whether the plaint as filed by the appellant could have been rejected by invoking Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC? 7. Indeed, Order 7 Rule 11 CPC gives ample power to the court to reject the plaint, if from the averments in the plaint, it is evident that the suit is barred by any law including the law of limitation. This position is no more res integra. We may usefully refer to the decision of this Court in Ram Prakash Gupta v. Rajiv Kumar Gupta [(2007) 10 SCC 59]. In paras 13 to 20, the Court observed as follows: (SCC pp. 65-66) "13. As per Order 7 Rule 11, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y examining the party searchingly under Order 10 CPC." (See T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal [(1977) 4 SCC 467], SCC p. 468.) 17. It is trite law that not any particular plea has to be considered, and the whole plaint has to be read. As was observed by this Court in Roop Lal Sathi v. Nachhattar Singh Gill [(1982) 3 SCC 487], only a part of the plaint cannot be rejected and if no cause of action is disclosed, the plaint as a whole must be rejected. 18. In Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. v. Ganesh Property [(1998) 7 SCC 184] it was observed that the averments in the plaint as a whole have to be seen to find out whether clause (d) of Rule 11 Order 7 was applicable. 19. In Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Charity Commr. [(2004) 3 SCC 137] this Court held thus: (SCC pp. 146-47, para 15) '15. There cannot be any compartmentalisation, dissection, segregation and inversions of the language of various paragraphs in the plaint. If such a course is adopted it would run counter to the cardinal canon of interpretation according to which a pleading has to be read as a whole to ascertain its true import. It is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage and to read it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for deciding an application thereunder are the averments in the plaint. The trial court can exercise the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC at any stage of the suit - before registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at any time before the conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 11 Order 7 CPC, the averments in the plaint are germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage, therefore, a direction to file the written statement without deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC cannot but be procedural irregularity touching the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court.' It is clear that in order to consider Order 7 Rule 11, the court has to look into the averments in the plaint and the same can be exercised by the trial court at any stage of the suit. It is also clear that the averments in the written statement are immaterial and it is the duty of the court to scrutinise the averments/pleas in the plaint. In other words, what needs to be looked into in deciding such an application are the averments in the plaint. At that sta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... This averment cannot be read in isolation. .... 22. It is well-established position that the cause of action for filing a suit would consist of bundle of facts. Further, the factum of the suit being barred by limitation, ordinarily, would be a mixed question of fact and law. Even for that reason, invoking Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is ruled out. In the present case, the assertion in the plaint is that the appellant verily believed that its claim was being processed by the regional office and the regional office would be taking appropriate decision at the earliest. That belief was shaken after receipt of letter from the Senior Manager of the Bank, dated 8-5-2002 followed by another letter dated 19-9-2002 to the effect that the action taken by the Bank was in accordance with the rules and the appellant need not correspond with the Bank in that regard any further. This firm response from the respondent Bank could trigger the right of the appellant to sue the respondent Bank. Moreover, the fact that the appellant had eventually sent a legal notice on 28-11-2003 and again on 7-1-2005 and then filed the suit on 23-2-2005, is also invoked as giving rise to cause of act....