Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1279 (RAJ)

Ranjithmal Chordiya v. Shivram Singh

2012-05-16

PRASHANT KUMAR AGARWAL

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - The defendant-petitioner has preferred this Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 4.8.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Civil Suit No.05/2009 whereby the learned Court below has dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 Civil Procedure Code filed by the petitioner. 2. Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that plaintiff-non-petitioner No.1-Shri Shivram Singh filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendant-petitioner and defendant-non-petitioner No.2-Smt. Guman Kanwar with the averment that his father Late Thakur Panne Singh died on 21.11.1977 when the non-petitioner was minor of the age of about 9 years and he is only son of his father begotten from his second wife defendant-non-petitioner-Smt. Guman Kanwar. It was further averred that his father executed a will dated 19.11.1977 in his favour and he has acquired title and ownership rights in the suit property under the will. It was further submitted that defendant-petitioner-Shri Ranjithmal Chordia fraudulently got executed a registered sale deed dated 27.8.1982 in his favour in regard to the suit property from the defendant-non-petitioner and the same is void and illegal against the rights of the plaintiff-non-petitioner. It was further submitted that the aforesaid sale deed was executed in pursuance of the permission granted by the District Judge, Merta City (District Nagaur) vide its order dated 3.7.1982 and the fact of execution of the aforesaid sale deed was never in his knowledge. It was also averred that the cause of action arose on 13.9.1999 when the petitioner claimed possession and ownership rights in the suit property on the basis of the sale deed and threatened the non-petitioner to dispossess him from the suit property. It was also stated that the fact of knowledge of execution of the sale-deed was acquired by him only on 13.9.1999. It was alleged in the plaint that the suit is within limitation under Articles 56, 58 and 113 of the Limitation Act (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act"). 3. The defendant-petitioner-Shri Ranjithmal Chordia filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 Civil Procedure Code for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation even from the reading of the averments made in the plaint itself. 3. The defendant-petitioner-Shri Ranjithmal Chordia filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 Civil Procedure Code for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation even from the reading of the averments made in the plaint itself. It was averred in the application that the prescribed period of three years for filing the present suit commenced as soon as the plaintiff-non-petitioner attained majority whereas the suit has been filed in the year 1999. 4. Reply to the application was filed by the plaintiff-non-petitioner and the learned Court below after hearing both the parties, dismissed the application vide order dated 4.8.2011. Being dissatisfied, the defendant-petitioner is before this Court by way of this civil revision petition. It is pertinent to note that written statement was also filed by the petitioner and on the basis of pleadings of the parties, necessary issues were framed by the trial Court and the trial has already been commenced. 5. Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even from the reading of the plaint filed by the non-petitioner it is evident that the suit is barred by limitation under the provisions of the Limitation Act and more particularly with reference to Sections 6, 8 and Article 60 of the same because the non-petitioner himself has stated that he got right and title in the suit property under the will dated 19.11.1977 allegedly executed by his father and the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner is illegal, void and inoperative, against his rights and the same is liable to be declared so. It is also clear that the non-petitioner attained majority on 22.8.1987 and, therefore, the suit could have been filed on or before 22.8.1990 within three years from the date on which the non-petitioner attained majority. According to learned counsel every case in which plaintiff files a suit to set aside a transfer of property made by his guardian, it is to be filed within three years from date on which the minor attains majority and, therefore, in the present case, the case of the non-petitioner is that his mother-defendant-non-petitioner No.2 without any right executed the sale deed in question and it is to be set aside, it was essential for the non-petitioner to file the suit within three years of attaining majority i.e. 22.8.1987. It was further submitted that in such a suit by a plaintiff challenging the transfer of property allegedly made during his minority by his guardian, the question of knowledge of such transfer is totally irrelevant and the suit is to be filed within the period of three years prescribed under Article 60 of the Act. According to learned counsel, Article 59 of the Act relating to a suit for cancellation or setting aside of an instrument or decree or for the rescission of a contract is applicable to a case other than a case of a minor. It was further submitted that a conjoint reading of Sections 6 and 8 of the Act clearly makes out that the maximum period is three years from the cessation of the disability including the minority and this period starts from the date on which the disability ends.In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the cases of Vishwambhar and others v. Laxminarayan (Dead) through LRS. and another reported in (2001) 6 SCC 163 , Chinnaiah Kownder v. Katayya Kownder reported in AIR 1978 (Madras) 51 , Darshan Singh and others v. Gurdev Singh reported in (1994) 6 SCC 585 and Prem Singh and others v. Birbal and others reported (2006) SCC 353 . 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff-non-petitioner submitted that according to plaint averments, it is clear that when the sale deed in question was executed the non-petitioner was minor of the age of about 9 years and it was never in his knowledge that her mother has executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner and for the first time the fact of execution of sale deed came in his knowledge on 13.9.1999 when the petitioner tried to dispossess the non-petitioner claiming title and rights under the sale deed in question. According to learned counsel the cause of action for declaring the said sale deed void and illegal to the rights of the non-petitioner arose on 13.9.1999, the date of knowledge and, therefore, the suit cannot be said to be barred by time. According to learned counsel the cause of action for declaring the said sale deed void and illegal to the rights of the non-petitioner arose on 13.9.1999, the date of knowledge and, therefore, the suit cannot be said to be barred by time. It was further submitted that in the present case, Article 60 of the Act is not applicable by the reason that it is not the case of the non-petitioner that from the very beginning the sale deed was in his knowledge but he has come with a case that the fact came to his knowledge only on 13.9.1999. It was further submitted that the present suit for declaration is covered under Article 58 of the Act according to which the period is three years and the same starts from the date on which the right to sue first accrueses and in the present case the right accrued on 13.9.1999 when the fact of sale deed came into the knowledge of the non-petitioner for the first time. Apart from that, the suit is also covered under Article 59 of the Act for which also a period of three years is prescribed and that commences when the fact entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument or decree cancelled or set aside or the contract rescrinded first become known to him. According to learned counsel for the non-petitioner merely because the sale deed in question was executed when the non-petitioner was a minor, Article 60 of the Act cannot be applied.In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the non-petitioner relied upon the case of Narne Rama Murthy v. Ravula Somasundaram and others reported in (2005) 6 SCC 614 . 7. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and also gone through the material made available for my perusal as well as the relevant legal provisions and the case law. 8. The well settled legal position is that an application for rejection of plaint can be allowed if the averments made in the plaint even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, the suit appears to be barred by any law including the limitation. 8. The well settled legal position is that an application for rejection of plaint can be allowed if the averments made in the plaint even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, the suit appears to be barred by any law including the limitation. The question as to whether a suit is barred by limitation or not would, therefore, depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and for the said purpose only the averments made in the plaint are relevant. At this stage, the Court would not be entitled to consider the case of the defence. For the purpose of invoking Order 7 Rule 11 (d) Civil Procedure Code, no amount of evidence can be looked into and the issues on merit of the matter which may arise between the parties would not be within the realm of the Court at that stage. For the applicability of Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Code, it must be shown that the suit is barred under any law and to determine that question, the averments made in the plaint are to be considered without any addition or subtraction. 9. In the present case, the plaintiff-non-petitioner is claiming that his father Late Shri Panne Singh was the sole owner of the suit property and he executed a will on 19.11.1977 in favour of him regarding all his properties including the suit property when the non-petitioner was minor of the age of about 9 years and under this will the rights and title in the suit property conferred upon him and he became sole owner of the same and from the very beginning he alone is in the possession of the suit property. The further claim of the non-petitioner is that for the first time he became aware on 13.9.1999 of the fact that his mother-defendant-non-petitioner No.2 has executed a sale deed dated 27.8.1982 in favour of the petitioner when the petitioner on the basis of the sale deed tried to dispossess him. According to non-petitioner the cause of action for filing the present suit arose only on 13.9.1999 when his title and possession of the suit property was threatened by the petitioner claimaing title and right on the basis of sale deed dated 27.8.1982. The case of the non-petitioner is also that the limitation for filing the suit began from 13.9.1999. According to non-petitioner the cause of action for filing the present suit arose only on 13.9.1999 when his title and possession of the suit property was threatened by the petitioner claimaing title and right on the basis of sale deed dated 27.8.1982. The case of the non-petitioner is also that the limitation for filing the suit began from 13.9.1999. It is thus, clear that the cause of action for filing the present suit has been based on the knowledge of the sale deed and not on the basis that the non-petitioner is entitled to file the suit on the cessation of his minority. I am of the considered view that looking to the averments made in the plaint, the question of limitation has to be considered in accordance with the provisions of Articles 56, 58 and 59 of the Act and not according to Sections 6, 8 and Article 60 of the same. Whether the claim of the non-petitioner that he for the first time got knowledge of the sale deed in question on 13.9.1999 and before that he was not aware of it, is correct or not, cannot be decided at this stage of the proceedings because if it is disputed by the defendant-petitioner, it becomes a mixed question of fact and law which can be decided only after recording evidence of both the parties. It is well settled that if the defendant claims a suit to be barred by law and also claims that the plaint itself is liable to be rejected on that basis but if it is found by the Court that the question raised is a mixed question of fact and law, the same cannot be decided only on the basis of an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 Civil Procedure Code.The relevant portion of Section 6 of the Act provides that where a person entitled to institute a suit is, at the time from which the prescribed period is to be reckoned a minor, he may institute the suit within the same period after the minority has ceased, as would otherwise have been allowed from the time specified therefor in the third column of the Schedule. This provision makes it clear that the period of limitation for filing a suit by a minor does not start from the date on which the right to sue accrues as indicated in the relevant third column of the Schedule but that period will commence from the date on which the minority ceased. The relevant portion of Section 8 of the Act provides that nothing in Section 6 of the Act shall be deemed to extend, for more than three years from the cessation of the disability, the period of limitation for any suit.The combined effect of Sections 6 and 8 read with third column of the appropriate Article of the Schedule of the Act is that a person under disability may sue after cessation of disability within the same period as would otherwise be allowed from the time specified therefor in the third Schedule. But such extended period would not be beyond three years from the date of cessation of the disability. Part-III of the Schedule to the Act provides for period of limitation for suits relating to declarations. Article 56 provides that a suit to declare the forgery of an instrument issued or registered has to be filed within a period of three years and this period begins when the issue or registration becomes known to the plaintiff. This provision makes it clear that for a suit as referred in this provision the prescribed period of three years does not commence from the date of the instrument or its registration but from the date on which the fact of issue or registration becomes known to the plaintiff. Article 58 provides for any other declaration. The period prescribed is also three years but it commences from the date when the right to sue first accrues. The question when the right to sue first acrrued to the plaintiff to obtain such declaration is a question of fact depending on facts and circumstances of each case and in my view in some cases the right to sue may first accrue when it comes into the knowledge of the plaintiff that he has a right of declaration. In such a case the prescribed period of three years shall commence from the date of knowledge of the plaintiff. In such a case the prescribed period of three years shall commence from the date of knowledge of the plaintiff. There can be no 'right to sue' until there is an accrual of the right asserted in the suit and its infringement, or at least a clear and unequivocal treat to infringe that right, by the defendant against whom the suit is instituted. Part-IV of the Schedule relates to the suits to decrees or instruments. According to Article 59 for a suit to cancel or set aside an instrument or decree or for the rescission of a contract, the period is three years and this period begins to run when the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument or decree cancelled or set aside or the contract rescinded first become known to the plaintiff. Accroding to this provision for such a suit the prescribed period does not commence from the date on which the instrument was executed or decree was passed or the contract was rescinded but when the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument or decree cancelled or set aside or the contract rescinded first comes into his knowledge. In a case the question when such fact first became known to the plaintiff is again a question of fact which can be decided only on the basis of evidence available on record and it may vary from case to case. According to Article 60 (a), the period of limitation for a suit to set aside a transfer of property made by the guardian of a ward, if filed by such a ward who has attained majority, is also three years but the same shall begin from the date when the ward attains majority. According to Article 60 (a), the period of limitation for a suit to set aside a transfer of property made by the guardian of a ward, if filed by such a ward who has attained majority, is also three years but the same shall begin from the date when the ward attains majority. Although, this provision specifically provides for a suit filed by a ward to set aside a transfer of property made by his guardian, but I am of the view that this provision is applicable only when the transfer of property allegedly made by the guardian was in the knowledge of the ward from the very beginning or it came in his knowledge during his minority but if a minor comes with a case that the transfer was made without his knowledge and the fact of transfer was concealed from him and such fact was not known to him even during his minority and it came into his knowledge afterwards, this provision will not be applicable and general provisions as referred in Articles 56, 58 and 59 would be applicable. If a guardian of a ward makes a transfer of property belonging to a ward with his knowledge, in normal circumstances right to set aside such transfer will accrue as soon as such transfer was made but an additional protection has been accorded by law to a minor providing that if such transfer was not challenged at that time, it can still be challenged by him within three years from the date of attaining majority. Similarly, if the fact of transfer of such property made by the guardian comes to the knowledge of the ward any time after the date of transfer during the minority again he has a right to challenge such transfer by filing a suit within a period of three years from the date on which he attains majority. I am of the view that this provision cannot be applied to a case in which the minor claims that the transfer was made without his knowledge or the fact of transfer did not come in his knowledge during his minority but sometime after attaining majority. In such a case a minor cannot be deprived of his right to file a suit to set aside such a transfer only by the reason that he failed to file a suit within three years of attaining majority. In such a case a minor cannot be deprived of his right to file a suit to set aside such a transfer only by the reason that he failed to file a suit within three years of attaining majority. When the fact of transfer was not into the knowledge of such a minor, how it can be expected from him that he files a suit within three years from the date on which he attained majority. Therefore, this contention of learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be legally sustained that the non-petitioner could have filed the present suit only within three years from the date on which he attained majority. Although, the case of the non-petitioner is also that his mother executed the sale deed in question and he has a right to challenge the same and to file a suit for setting aside the transfer so made in favour of the petitioner but this fact cannot be ignored that the further claim of the non-petitioner is also that the fact of execution of sale deed was first acquired by him on 13.9.1999 when the petitioner on the basis of the sale deed threatened to dispossess him. I am of the view that looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case Article 60 of the Act can not be made applicable. I am of the considered view that looking to the averments made in the plaint, the present suit is covered under the provisions of Articles 56, 58 and 59 or one or more of them. The non-petitioner has claimed that the sale deed is a forged one which was executed and registered by committing fraud and, therefore, it is liable to be declared void, inoperative and illegal to his rights. If the suit is considered to be covered under this Article, the period of three years commenced when the fact of issue or registration of the sale deed in question first became known to the non-petitioner i.e.13.9.1999. Similarly, if it is considered that the present suit is covered under Article 58, then also the period of three years is to be held to commence when the right to sue first accrued to the non-petitioner. Similarly, if it is considered that the present suit is covered under Article 58, then also the period of three years is to be held to commence when the right to sue first accrued to the non-petitioner. According to him he is in possession of the suit property and he even earning from it, therefore, at this stage of the proceedings it only can be held that the right to sue first accrued to the petitioner when the fact of execution of the sale deed first came into his knowledge. Apart from that, if the suit is considered to be covered under Article 59, even then the prescribed period of three years would run only from the date when it first became known to the non-petitioner that he has a right to challenge the sale deed so executed by his mother in favour of the petitioner. So far as Sections 6 and 8 of the Act are concerned, these provisions do not prescribe the period of limitation within which a person under disability has to file a suit but these provisions grant an additional period to a person under disability as indicated in the provisions. According to these provisions, if at the time when right to sue accrues to a person who is a minor, the period of limitation for filing suit, as prescribed under the third column of the Schedule, will not commence against him immediately on the accrual of the cause of action and he has a right to file the suit within the prescribed period but the same will be reckoned from the date on which he attains majority but the maximum period is three years from the date of attaining majority and not the actual period as prescribed in the third column of the Schedule. 10. So far as the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submissions are concerned, being based on entirely different set of facts, they are of no help to the petitioner.In the case of Vishwambhar & anr v. Laxminarayan (Dead) through LRS. & anr. (supra) the plaintiffs filed a suit for possession contending that the sale deeds executed by their mother-guardian were void, inoperative and not binding on them as alienation has been effected without Court permission and without legal necessity. & anr. (supra) the plaintiffs filed a suit for possession contending that the sale deeds executed by their mother-guardian were void, inoperative and not binding on them as alienation has been effected without Court permission and without legal necessity. The suit was held to be barred by limitation by the reason that the same was filed after expiry of three years as prescribed under Article 60 of the Act. It appears from the facts of the case that from the very beginning it was in the knowledge of the plaintiffs that the sale deeds have been executed by their mother. When the fact of alienation was in the knowledge of the plaintiffs, Article 60 of the Act was rightly applied to hold the suit time barred but in the present case at this stage, it cannot be said that the fact of execution of the sale deed in question was in the knowledge of the non-petitioner from the very beginning or it came into his knowledge during his minority.In the case of Prem Singh and others v. Birbal and others (supra) it appears that from the facts that the plaintiff himself was party to the sale deed, in question and the same was executed playing fraud etc. upon him. When the plaintiff of that case was himself party to the sale deed in question, it can be assumed that the fact of execution of the sale deed was in his knowledge and that is why it was held that Articles 60 and 65 of the Act are applicable.In the case of Darshan Singh and others v. Gurdev Singh (supra) also the plaintiff filed a suit for possession of immovable property and in that circumstance it was held that the suit could have been filed within the maximum period of three years from the date on which he attained majority and not within 12 years after attaining majority. In that case the question of knowledge of execution of sale deed was never under consideration.Similarly, the facts of the case of Chinnaiah Kownder v. Katayya Kownder (supra) are entirely different from the facts of this case and the law laid down in that case cannot made applicable in the present case. 11. In that case the question of knowledge of execution of sale deed was never under consideration.Similarly, the facts of the case of Chinnaiah Kownder v. Katayya Kownder (supra) are entirely different from the facts of this case and the law laid down in that case cannot made applicable in the present case. 11. The net result of all this discussion is that from the averments made in the plaint at this stage of the proceedings it cannot be held that the suit filed by the non-petitioner is time barred. So far as the question whether the fact of execution of the sale deed first came into the knowledge of non-petitioner on 13.9.1999 or not, it is a question of fact which can be decided only on the basis of evidence produced by the parties. The well settled position of law is that the averments made in the plaint are to be taken on their face value and to be correct in their entirety. The learned Court below after a thoughtful consideration and by a reasoned order has rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order requiring interference by the Court under its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 Civil Procedure Code.Consequently, the revision petition being meritless is, hereby, dismissed. Stay application also stands dismissed. Revision dismissed. *******