Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad allowed the Civil Revision Applications and rejected the plaint in Regular Civil Suit No.106/2022. It held that the suit, filed after 43 years of attaining majority, was barred by limitation and disclosed no cause of action. The Court stated:
“Cause of action pleaded by plaintiff is illusory and product of clever drafting.”
It quashed the trial court’s refusal to reject the plaint and allowed the applications under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
Facts
The plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No.106/2022 before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nanded, seeking:
- Declaration of 1/3rd ownership in land Survey No.3 (Gut No.28),
- Declaration that sale deeds dated 09.06.1972 and 04.07.1975 are not binding on him,
- Possession and perpetual injunction against alienation by certain defendants.
The plaintiff claimed inheritance through his father, Naroba, who allegedly held 22 acres from the suit land. After Naroba’s death in 1967, the plaintiff’s uncles and brother mutated their names on the property and executed sale deeds in 1972 and 1975. During this time, a Special Civil Suit No.63/1971 (renumbered as RCS No.988/2000) was pending and eventually dismissed in 2021. The plaintiff contended that the cause of action arose from this dismissal.
Issues
- Whether the plaint disclosed a genuine cause of action for instituting the suit?
- Whether the suit, seeking a declaration in respect of 1972 and 1975 sale deeds, was within limitation?
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The suit was hopelessly barred by limitation as the sale deeds in question were executed in 1972 and 1975.
- Plaintiff attained majority in 1978 and had knowledge of these transactions.
- Cause of action based on the 2021 dismissal of another suit was irrelevant.
- Trial Court erred in holding that limitation was a mixed question of law and fact.
- Reliefs were illusory, and the plaint deserved rejection under Order VII Rule 11.
- Reliance was placed on several Supreme Court judgments including T. Arivandandam (1977) and Raghwendra Sharan Singh (2020).
Respondent’s Arguments
- Plaintiff was a minor during the previous litigation and represented by his stepmother.
- Since the suit property was already under litigation in RCS No.988/2000, he could not independently file a claim.
- Dismissal of that suit in 2021 gave rise to the present cause of action.
- The issue of limitation was a mixed question of law and fact, to be determined during trial.
Analysis of the Law
- The Court analyzed Article 58 (three years for declaratory relief) and Article 110 (twelve years for partition) of the Limitation Act.
- Plaintiff attained majority in 1978, and limitation, even under Article 110, expired by 1990.
- Even disability extension under the Limitation Act would not save the suit from being barred.
Precedent Analysis
The Court cited and relied upon:
- T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC 467: On rejecting plaints with no real cause of action.
- Raghwendra Sharan Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singh (2020) 16 SCC 601: If plaint shows suit is barred by limitation, court can reject it under Order VII Rule 11.
- Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyani Bhanusali (2020) 7 SCC 366: Sham litigation should not waste judicial time.
- Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi AIR 1986 SC 1253: To end meaningless litigation at the earliest stage.
- Chhabubhai Balkrishna Sutar (2010 (5) Mh.L.J. 885): Suit for partition after prolonged ouster is barred.
Court’s Reasoning
- Plaintiff’s claim arose in 1978 on attaining majority, but the suit was filed in 2022—43 years later.
- He was fully aware of the 1972 and 1975 sale deeds.
- The cause of action based on the dismissal of another suit in 2021 was held to be “absolutely irrelevant.”
- The Court observed: “It is difficult to hold that pendency of Tuljaram’s suit precluded plaintiff from asserting his own right.”
- Trial court failed to examine the genuineness of the cause of action and wrongly deferred the limitation issue to trial.
- It was incumbent on the trial court to detect “clever drafting” and apply Order VII Rule 11 appropriately.
Conclusion
The High Court held that the suit:
- Disclosed no cause of action,
- Was barred by limitation under Articles 58 and 110 of the Limitation Act,
- Was filed 43 years after the plaintiff attained majority with no legal justification.
The Court concluded:
“Plaint is liable to be rejected since it sans cause of action and barred by limitation.”
Implications
- The judgment underscores strict scrutiny of delay in asserting property rights.
- Trial courts must actively use Order VII Rule 11 to weed out time-barred and frivolous suits.
- Pendency of another suit cannot be used to indefinitely postpone the accrual of a cause of action.
- The ruling reinforces that legal disability ends on attaining majority and does not permit indefinite delay in seeking relief.