Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Neo Agri Foods Pvt. Ltd. Thr. Pawan … vs Chatarsingh S/O Late Shri Mulchand … on 23 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11221
1 C.R. No. 192/2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 23rd OF APRIL, 2026
CIVIL REVISION No. 192 of 2020
M/S NEO AGRI FOODS PVT. LTD. THR. PAWAN SHRIMAL
Versus
CHATARSINGH S/O LATE SHRI MULCHAND PATEL (DECEASED)
THROUGH LRS. SANTOSH PATEL AND OTHERS
Shri Amit S. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Nitin Phadke,
learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Nilesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 7.
ORDER
This Civil Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (for hereinafter referred as „CPC‟) has been filed against the
impugned order dated 13.01.2020 (Annexure P/1) passed by the XX Additional
District Judge Indore whereby application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of
CPC on behalf of defendant No. 4/applicant herein for rejection of the plaint
has been dismissed.
02. The petitioner has filed an application I. A. Number 4619/2026 for
taking documents on record. It has been submitted by the Senior Counsel
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 27-04-2026
16:36:34
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11221
2 C.R. No. 192/2020
appearing for the petitioner that the document filed with the application are the
documents filed by the respondent /plaintiffs themselves alongwith the plaint.
Counsel for respondent did not object to it. In view of this the application is
allowed and documents are taken on record.
2.1 Respondents No. 1 to 6, original plaintiffs filed a Civil Suit No.
1115/2018 on 24.10.2018 for the disputed lands bearing survey No. 1097/1 area
2.407 hectares, survey No. 1099/2 area 0.332 hectares, survey No. 1101/2 area
0.729 hectares, survey No. 1103/1 area 0.733 hectares situated at Village Rau,
Tehsil & Dist. Indore for the following reliefs:-
(i) In Plaint Para 27(a), the plaintiffs/respondents No.
1 to 6 (being LRs of Late Mulchand Patel) have claimed a
declaration in favour of plaintiffs and defendants No. 11 to
29; against defendants No. 1 to 10, claiming that the suit
lands are jointly owned by the plaintiffs and the defendants
No. 11 to 29 and a further declaration that the plaintiffs have
1/4th share in the joint holding and are entitled to mutation
in the place of defendants No. 4 to 10.
(ii) In Para 27(b), it is claimed that a declaration be
made in favour of plaintiffs and against defendants No. 1 to
10 that mutation order dated 18.07.1991 passed in Revenue
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 27-04-2026
16:36:34
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11221
3 C.R. No. 192/2020
Case No. 23/A-6/1990-91 in favour of Late Kamal Singh
(through LRs Defendant No. 1 to 3) is bad in law and order
dated 30.09.2013 passed in Revenue First Appeal by SDO
and order dated 25.06.2018 passed in Revenue Second
Appeal are bad in law.
(iii) In para 27(c), of the plaint a declaration is claimed
in favour of plaintiffs and against defendant No. 1 to 10 that
seven sale deeds, all dated 23.11.2006, executed by Late
Kamal Singh in favour of defendant No. 4 to 10 w.r.t. suit
lands are void and do not bind the plaintiffs and consequent
mutation in name of defendants No. 4 to 10 is also illegal.
(iv) In para 27(d), it is claimed that a decree of partition
may be granted w.r.t. to suit lands allotting 1/4th share each
to the plaintiff (being LRs of Mulchand); 1/4th share to
defendants No. 11 to 12 (being LRs of Kanha Ji); 1/4th share
to defendant No. 23-26 (being LRs of Kunwar Ji); and 1/4th
share to defendants NO. 27 to 29 (being LRs of Dulchand
Ji).
(v) In para 27(e) of the plaint, a decree for possession
for 1/4th share of plaintiff, an area on 1.051 hectare out of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 27-04-2026
16:36:34
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11221
4 C.R. No. 192/2020
suit lands is also claimed.
(vi) In para 27(ee), a permanent injunction is claimed
against defendants No. 1 to 10 for restraining them from
alienation, creating encumbrance, etc. on the suit lands.
03. In the aforesaid Civil Suit, an application under Order VII Rule 11
CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that suit is ex-facie barred by
limitation on the plaint allegations itself and the same was contested by the
respondents no1 to 6 / plaintiffs and vide impugned order, the same has been
dismissed which is under challenge in this Civil Revision.
04. Learned Sr. counsel for the applicant invites attention of this Court
towards para-23of the plaint wherein various dates of accrual of cause of action
have been mentioned submits that as per averments cause of action first accrued
in the month of April 2012 when the plaintiffs were sought to be dispossessed
by defendants No. 4 to 10 and further on 18.04.2012, 20.04.2012 and
23.04.2012 when the plaintiffs obtained certified copies of seven sale deeds
executed dated 23.11.2006 ( under challenge in the instant civil suit), from the
office of Sub-Registrar, Indore. Further cause of action accrued on 25.05.2012
when Kamal Singh (now dead through LRS – defendants No. 1 to 3) tried to
raise pillars on the suit lands and attempted for forceful dispossession by
defendants No. 4 to 10 was made and a further cause of action has been shown
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 27-04-2026
16:36:34
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11221
5 C.R. No. 192/2020
to have arisen on 07.06.2012. Certified copy of mutation order in favour of
Kamal Singh was obtained and further accrued on 19.07.2012 when appeal was
filed against mutation and on 20.06.2013 when defendants No. 4 to 10 forcibly
dispossessed the plaintiffs and further accrued on 30.09.2013 when appeal was
dismissed by SDO and on 25.06.2018 when second appeal was dismissed by
the Additional Commissioner. In the aforesaid factual matrix, learned
Sr.counsel inviting attention of this Court towards Article 58 and 59 of the
Schedule of Limitation Act, 1963 submits that limitation in this started from
the date when cause of action accrued for the first time and as per plaint
allegations , cause of action first accrued in the month of April, 2012. Learned
counsel inviting attention of this Court towards Section 9 of the Limitation Act
submits that once limitation starts, it is not arrested by subsequent events.
Learned Sr. counsel submits that admittedly, suit has been filed on 24.02.2018,
near about 6 years after when the first cause of action accrued in April 2012 and
even if it is assumed that on 07.06.2012 certified copies of mutation order were
obtained, even then the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation even on the face
of the facts as alleged in the plaint.
05. Learned Sr. counsel further submits that it is a suit where
composite reliefs have been claimed for declaration and possession. In such
cases when a composite suit is filed for cancellation/avoiding of sale deeds as
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 27-04-2026
16:36:34
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11221
6 C.R. No. 192/2020
well as for recovery of possession, the limitation period is required to be
considered with respect to the substantive/primary relief of cancellation of the
sale deed, which is relief of declaration in the instant case and limitation for
that is 3 year,s when cause of action first accrued. To buttress his submissions
that mutation orders and registered sale deeds are in public domain and are
presumed to be in the constructive notice of public in general, learned counsel
has placed reliance on paras 23, 25, 27, 28 & 30 of the judgment of the Apex
Court in Rajeev Gupta & Ors. vs. Prashant Garg & Ors. 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 889. Learned counsel has further placed reliance upon the order passed by
this Court in Civil Revision No. 171/2026 (Navneet & Ors. vs. Smt. Anita &
Ors.) dated 23.03.2026.
06. Learned Sr. Counsel has further placed reliance on para 20 to 22 of
the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Dhurandhar Prasad Singh vs. Jain
Prakash University & Ors. (2001) 6 SCC 534, to submit that relief of
possestion in the instant case can not be obtained unless sale deeds under
challenge in the suit are avoided and that there is a difference between void and
voidable documents. Learned Sr. counsel further submits that if a suit is filed
for a declaration that a document is got executed fraudulently or forged and/or
fabricated, it is voidable and a party who alleges otherwise is obliged to get it
avoided or cancelled. He further submits that when voidable transaction which
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 27-04-2026
16:36:34
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11221
7 C.R. No. 192/2020
is required to be set aside and the same is avoided, from the day it is so set
aside and not any day prior to it. Legal effect of such document cannot be taken
away without setting aside the same, it cannot be treated to be void but would
be obviously voidable. Learned Sr. Counsel further submits that mutation in
favour of Kamal Singh was not a simple mutation, it was based upon order of
Revenue Court under Section 190 of MPLRC after conferral of title upon him
as occupancy tenant, therefore, it cannot be argued that seller was not having
any authority to execute the sale deeds assailed herein and therefore without
getting it annulled no relief of possession can be claimed. Learned Sr. Counsel
further submits that learned trial Court has not taken into consideration the facts
which flow from the plaint itself making the reliefs as claimed in the plaint
barred by law. Learned counsel further submits that if from the facts of the
case, it is discernible that suit is barred by law then application for rejection of
the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC could not have been dismissed only
on the ground that point of limitation isalways mixed question of fact and law.
On these submissions, relying upon the aforesaid judgments, learned counsel
prays for allowing the revision petition by setting aside the impugned order.
07. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that this is a
suit filed for different reliefs and for the relief of possession, limitation for
period of 12 years and the suit has been filed within aforesaid limitation as per
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 27-04-2026
16:36:34
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11221
8 C.R. No. 192/2020
article 65 of the Limitation Act. To buttress his submission, learned counsel
placed reliance on para 9 of the judgment by the Apex Court in Sopanrao &
Anr. Vs. Syed Mehmood & Ors. (2019) 7 SCC 76 and he has also placed
reliance an order passed by this Court in F.A. No. 626/2011 (Santosh Chouhan
vs. Yashwant & 7 Ors.) dated 11.10.2018. Learned Counsel further submits
that issue of limitation in the instant case can be decided only after evidence as
held by the Court below in the impugned order. No illegality or irregularity has
been committed by the Court below in rejecting the application filed under
Order VII Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground of
limitation. Learned counsel submits that revision petition is liable to be
dismissed as having no force, therefore, prays for its dismissal.
08. Heard and considered rival submissions of the learned counsel for
the parties and perused the record.
09. It is befitting to reproduce Rule 11(d) of Order VII of CPC for
appreciating the controversy in right perspective which runs as under:-
“Court shall reject a plaint:
(a) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
(b) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
(c) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 27-04-2026
16:36:34
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:112219 C.R. No. 192/2020
plaint to be barred by any law;
(e) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
(f) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
9.1 Before dwelling the factual matrix of the case, relevant judgments
by the Apex Court wherein the guidelines have been given for consideration to
be kept in mind while deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC
are to be looked into for appreciating the controversy involved in right
perspective.
9.2 Object for providing the aforesaid relief of rejection of plaint is to
weed out frivolous, vexatious and improper plaints at the very outset, thus,
saving judicial time and resources. Hon‟ble Apex Court in the matter of Azhar
Hussain (supra) has further observed the whole purpose of conferment of
powers under this provision is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless,
and bound to prove abortive, should not be permitted to waste judicial time of
the court, in the following words :
“12. …The whole purpose of conferment of such power is to
ensure that a litigation which is meaningless, and bound to
prove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time of
the Court, and exercise the mind of the respondent. The
sword of Damocles need not be kept hanging over his head
unnecessarily without point or purpose. Even if an ordinary
civil litigation, the Court readily exercises the power to
reject a plaint, if it does not disclose any cause of action.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 27-04-2026
16:36:34
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11221
10 C.R. No. 192/2020
Such a remedy is necessary to put an end to the sham litigation, so further
judicial time is not wasted, as observed by the Supreme Court in Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji
Bhanusal (2020) 7 SCC 366.
9.3 Hon’ble Apex Court in ITC Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate
Tribunal, (1998) 2 SCC 70 has held that the basic question to be decided while
dealing with an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code is
whether a real cause of action has been set out in the plaint or something purely
illusory has been stated with a view to get out of Order VII Rule 11 of the
Code. In case of T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467 : 1977
SCC OnLine SC 286 at page 470 also the Apex has emphasized that
irresponsible law suits should be nipped in bud. Relevant paragraph 5 runs as
under:-
“5. We have not the slightest hesitation in condemning the
petitioner for the gross abuse of the process of the court
repeatedly and unrepentently resorted to. From the statement of
the facts found in the judgment of the High Court, it is perfectly
plain that the suit now pending before the First Munsif’s Court,
Bangalore, is a flagrant misuse of the mercies of the law in
receiving plaints. The learned Munsif must remember that if on a
meaningful — not formal — reading of the plaint it is manifestly
vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear
right to sue, he should exercise his power under Order 7, Rule 11
CPC taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is
fulfilled. And, if clever drafting has created the illusion of aSignature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 27-04-2026
16:36:34
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1122111 C.R. No. 192/2020
cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining
the party searchingly under Order 10, CPC. An activist Judge is
the answer to irresponsible law suits. The trial courts would
insist imperatively on examining the party at the first hearing so
that bogus litigation can be shot down at the earliest stage. The
Penal Code is also resourceful enough to meet such men, (Cr.
XI) and must be triggered against them. In this case, the learned
Judge to his cost realised what George Bernard Shaw remarked
on the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi:
“It is dangerous to be too good.”
9.4 In para 23.6 of Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali
[Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali, (2020) 7 SCC 366 : (2020) 4
SCC (Civ) 128], Hon‟ble Apex Court has held that it is duty cast on the Court
while adjudicating the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC to
determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action by scrutinizing the
averments in the plaint, read in conjunction with the documents relied upon, or
whether the suit is barred by any law. Similarly In the matter of Sopan
Sukhdeo Sable Vs Charity Commr reported in (2004) 3 SCC 137 Hon’ble
Apex Court has held that the trial court must remember that if on a meaningful
and not formal reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in
the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, it should exercise the power
under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code taking care to see that the ground mentioned
therein is fulfilled. If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of
action, it has to be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 27-04-2026
16:36:34
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11221
12 C.R. No. 192/2020
searchingly under Order 10 of the Code. If the suit filed by the plaintiff is
allowed to continue it will definitely be a wastage of valuable judicial time
9.5 Subsequently, in the case of ITC Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate
Tribunal [ITC Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, (1998) 2 SCC 70]
this Court held that law cannot permit clever drafting which creates illusions of
a cause of action. What is required is that a clear right must be made out in the
plaint.
9.6 In the case of Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed
Jalal [Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal, (2017) 13 SCC 174
: (2017) 5 SCC (Civ) 602] also it is held further that it should be nipped in the
bud, so that bogus litigation will end at the earliest stage. The Court must be
vigilant against any camouflage or suppression, and determine whether the
litigation is utterly vexatious, and an abuse of the process of the court.
9.7 Hon‟ble Apex Court in ABC Laminart (P) Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies
(1989) 2 SCC 163, has dilated what cause of action means as under (relevant
para 12):-
“12. A cause of action means every fact, which if traversed, it
would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support
his right to a judgment of the court. In other words, it is a bundle
of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the
plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. It must include
some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such anSignature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 27-04-2026
16:36:34
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1122113 C.R. No. 192/2020
act no cause of action can possibly accrue. It is not limited to the
actual infringement of the right sued on but includes all the
material facts on which it is founded. It does not comprise
evidence necessary to prove such facts, but every fact necessary
for the plaintiff to prove to enable him to obtain a decree.
Everything which if not proved would give the defendant a right to
immediate judgment must be part of the cause of action. But it has
no relation whatever to the defense which may be set up by the
defendant nor does it depend upon the character of the relief
prayed for by the plaintiff.”
9.8 While considering the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC
only plaint allegations along with the documents filed therewith are to be
looked into and defence cannot be considered for adjudicating the same. The
Apex Court in the case of Kamala & others v. KT Eshwara SA and Ors
(2008)12 SCC 661, the two judge bench of the Supreme Court observed that
the conclusion as to rejection of plaint must be drawn from the averments made
in the plaint. The bench observed that what would be relevant for invoking
clause (d) of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code are the averments made in the plaint.
For that purpose, there cannot be any addition or subtraction. Relevant
paragraph 21, 22, 23 and 25 of the aforesaid judgments are reproduced as
under:-
“21. Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code has limited
application. It must be shown that the suit is barred
under any law. Such a conclusion must be drawn from
the averments made in the plaint. Different clauses in
Order 7 Rule 11, in our opinion, should not be mixed
up. Whereas in a given case, an application for
rejection of the plaint may be filed on more than one
ground specified in various sub-clauses thereof, a
clear finding to that effect must be arrived at. What
would be relevant for invoking clause (d) of Order 7Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 27-04-2026
16:36:34
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1122114 C.R. No. 192/2020
Rule 11 of the Code are the averments made in the
plaint. For that purpose, there cannot be any addition
or subtraction. Absence of jurisdiction on the part of a
court can be invoked at different stages and under
different provisions of the Code. Order 7 Rule 11 of
the Code is one, Order 14 Rule 2 is another.
22. For the purpose of invoking Order 7 Rule 11(d) of
the Code, no amount of evidence can be looked into.
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. All issues shall not be the
subject-matter of an order under the said provision.
23. The principles of res judicata, when attracted,
would bar another suit in view of Section 12 of the
Code. The question involving a mixed question of law
and fact which may require not only examination of
the plaint but also other evidence and the order passed
in the earlier suit may be taken up either as a
preliminary issue or at the final hearing, but, the said
question cannot be determined at that stage.
25. The decisions rendered by this Court as also by
various High Courts are not uniform in this behalf.
But, then the broad principle which can be culled out
therefrom is that the court at that stage would not
consider any evidence or enter into a disputed
question of fact or law. In the event, the jurisdiction of
the court is found to be barred by any law, meaning
thereby, the subject-matter thereof, the application for
rejection of plaint should be entertained.
24. It is one thing to say that the averments made in
the plaint on their face discloses no cause of action,
but it is another thing to say that although the same
discloses a cause of action, the same is barred by a
law.”
9.9 Similar view has been taken by the Apex Court in case of Srihari
Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat & Ors (2021) 9 SCC 99, the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 27-04-2026
16:36:34
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11221
15 C.R. No. 192/2020
Supreme Court, observed that to reject a plaint on the ground that the suit is
barred by any law, only the averments in the plaint will have to be referred to
and the defense made by the defendant in the suit must not be considered while
deciding the merits of the application.
10. In the light of aforesaid, it is to be seen whether any ground for
rejection of the plaint is made out which has not been decided in accordance
with the law by the Court below as contended by the applicant.
11. As per provisions contained in Article 58 of the Limitation Act, a
suit for declaration must be filed within a period of three years from the date
when the right to sue first accrues. Similarly, in Article 59 of the Limitation
Act, same period of limitation of three years has been mentioned. Both the
provisions are extracted as under:-
58 To obtain any other declaration. Three years. When the right to sue first
accrues.
59 To cancel or set aside an instrument or decree Three years. When the facts entitling the
or for the rescission of a contract. plaintiff to have the instrument or
decree cancelled or set aside or the
contract rescinded first become
known to him.
12. From bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is apparent that
Under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 a suit to obtain any declaration
must be instituted within three years from the date when the right to sue first
accrues. Hon‟ble the Apex Court in Khatri Hotels Private Limited (supra) has
held that the use of the word `first’ has been used between the words ‘sue’ and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 27-04-2026
16:36:34
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11221
16 C.R. No. 192/2020
‘accrued’, would mean that if a suit is based on multiple causes of action, the
period of limitation will begin to run from the date when the right to sue first
accrues. That is, if there are successive violations of the right, it would not give
rise to a fresh cause of action, and the suit will be liable to be dismissed, if it is
beyond the period of limitation counted from the day when the right to sue first
accrued. Similarly in Article 59 start of limitation is provided from the time
when the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument or decree cancelled
or set aside or the contract rescinded ‘first’ become known to him.
13. In the instant case even as per plaint allegations in paragraph -23
cause of action accrued for the first time in April 2012 for primary relief of
declaration and admittedly suit is filed on 24/10/2018 which is clearly barred
by law of limitation as provided in Article 58 of the Limitation Act and all
seven sale deeds under challenge were executed by Kamal Singh dead through
LRs defendents No1 to 3) on 23/11/2006, which as per plaint averments came
to the knowledge of plaintiffs in April 2012. Civil suit has been filed on
24.10.2018 after expiry of about 12 years of their execution and more than 6
years after gaining knowledge of the documents, much later than period of
three years prescribed for challenging the same. This is apparent from the
plaintiff‟s own averments of the plaint and requires no evidence for its
determination.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 27-04-2026
16:36:34
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11221
17 C.R. No. 192/2020
14. Learned Counsel for the respondents relying on paragraph 9 of
judgment by Apex Court in Sopanrao (supra) this is not a case where relief
only for declaration has been sought, but also main relief of possession based
on title of the plaintiffs over the disputed lands which has been sought and,
therefore, instant suit which is filed within period of 12 years as per Article 65
of Limitation Act from the date when cause of action first accrued in April,
2012 is not time barred whereas per contra Learned Sr. Counsel for the
applicants relying upon para 23, 30 to 36 of Rajeev Gupta (Supra) submits
that substantive relief in the instant case is that of declaration and without
getting the same decree of recovery of possession can not be given, hence
period of limitation will be of three years from the date in April 2012 when as
per plaint allegations, cause of action accrued for the first time and subsequent
dates of accrual of cause of action have given to create illusionary cause of
action.
15. To appreciate contentions relevant paragraph 9 Sopanrao (supra)
is extracted which runs as under:-
“9. It was next contended by the learned counsel that the
suit was not filed within limitation. This objection is totally
untenable. Admittedly, the possession of the land was
handed over to the Trust only in the year 1978. The suit was
filed in the year 1987. The appellants contend that the
limitation for the suit is three years as the suit is one for
declaration. We are of the view that this contention has to beSignature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 27-04-2026
16:36:34
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1122118 C.R. No. 192/2020
rejected. We have culled out the main prayers made in the
suit hereinabove which clearly indicate that it is a suit not
only for declaration but the plaintiffs also prayed for
possession of the suit land. The limitation for filing a suit
for possession on the basis of title is 12 years and, therefore,
the suit is within limitation. Merely because one of the
reliefs sought is of declaration that will not mean that the
outer limitation of 12 years is lost. Reliance placed by the
learned counsel for the appellants on the judgment of this
Court in L.C. Hanumanthappa v. H.B. Shivakumar [L.C.
Hanumanthappa v. H.B. Shivakumar, (2016) 1 SCC 332 :
(2016) 1 SCC (Civ) 310] is wholly misplaced. That
judgment has no applicability since that case was admittedly
only a suit for declaration and not a suit for both declaration
and possession. In a suit filed for possession based on title
the plaintiff is bound to prove his title and pray for a
declaration that he is the owner of the suit land because his
suit on the basis of title cannot succeed unless he is held to
have some title over the land. However, the main relief is of
possession and, therefore, the suit will be governed by
Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963. This Article deals
with a suit for possession of immovable property or any
interest therein based on title and the limitation is 12 years
from the date when possession of the land becomes adverse
to the plaintiff. In the instant case, even if the case of the
defendants is taken at the highest, the possession of the
defendants became adverse to the plaintiffs only on 19-8-
1978 when possession was handed over to the defendants.
Therefore, there is no merit in this contention of the
appellants.”
16. From perusal of facts of the aforesaid case, it is apparent that it
was a suit not only for the relief of declaration, but the plaintiffs have also
prayed for relief of possession based on their title over the disputed lands. In
such a factual matrix, it was held that merely because one of the reliefs is for
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 27-04-2026
16:36:34
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11221
19 C.R. No. 192/2020
declaration, it can not be said to be time barred as suit is filed for possession
based on the title also.. Hon‟ble the Apex Court treating the relief of possession
as main relief held that limitation for the suit will be governed by Article 65 of
the Limitation Act, 1963. But in the instant case factual matrix is completely
different wherein plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 to 6 have filed a suit for relief for
avoiding seven sale deeds which were executed by Kamal Singh, predecessor-
in-interests of the plaintiffs on 23.11.2006. Unless and until the aforesaid sale
deeds are avoided/declared null and void, plaintiffs cannot get relief of
possession over the disputed property, therefore, as claimed in para 27A, 27B
and 27C are the main reliefs and unless the plaintiffs could secure those relief,
they will not be entitled for the relief of possession. In case of Rajeev Gupta
(supra) which has been relied upon by the applicants/defendants, a suit was
filed for composite relief i.e.for cancellation of the sale deeds and for
possession, it was held that limitation period would have to be adjudged from
the primary relief of declaration, for which period of limitation is 3 years and
not from the ancillary relief of possession for which limitation period is 12
years. In holding so, the Hon‟ble Apex Court has held as under:-
“23. Further, in Rajpal Singh v. Saroj20, this Court held that
where a composite suit had been filed for cancellation of the sale
deed and of possession, the limitation period would have to be
adjudged from the primary relief of cancellation which is 3Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 27-04-2026
16:36:34
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1122120 C.R. No. 192/2020
(three) years, and not the ancillary relief of possession which is
12 (twelve) years. In holding so, this Court held that:
“14. The submission on behalf of the original plaintiff (now
represented through her heirs) that the prayer in the suit
was also for recovery of the possession and therefore the
said suit was filed within the period of twelve years and
therefore the suit has been filed within the period of
limitation, cannot be accepted. Relief for possession is a
consequential prayer and the substantive prayer was of
cancellation of the sale deed dated 19-4-1996 and therefore,
the limitation period is required to be considered with
respect to the substantive relief claimed and not the
consequential relief. When a composite suit is filed for
cancellation of the sale deed as well as for recovery of the
possession, the limitation period is required to be
considered with respect to the substantive relief of
cancellation of the sale deed, which would be three years
from the date of the knowledge of the sale deed sought to be
cancelled. Therefore, the suit, which was filed by the
original plaintiff for cancellation of the sale deed, can be
said to be substantive therefore the same was clearly barred
by limitation. Hence, the learned trial court ought to have
dismissed the suit on the ground that the suit was barred by
limitation. …”
(emphasis supplied)
17. From perusal of the aforesaid, it is apparent that facts of the case in
hand are identical where also primary relief is of declaration, therefore,
judgment relied upon by the respondents Sopanrao (supra) and also the order
passed by this Court in the case of Santosh Chouhan vs. Yashwant & 7 Ors.
(FA No. 626/2011, decided on 11.10.2018) does not come to their rescue.
18. From perusal of para-6 of the plaint, it is evident that sale deeds
under challenge as mentioned herein above came into the knowledge of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 27-04-2026
16:36:34
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11221
21 C.R. No. 192/2020
plaintiffs/respondents in April 2012 when on 18.04.2012, 20.04.2012 and
23.04.2012, they obtained copies of the aforesaid sale deeds from the office of
the Registrar. Similarly, from perusal of the plaint, it is also evident that
mutation order dated 18.07.1991 as per plaint allegations came ultimately in the
knowledge of the plaintiffs on 07.06.2012 when they obtained copies of the
aforesaid order and thereafter notice dated 01.06.2012 was issued to the
respondents/their predecessor in interests. It is also to be noted that order dated
18.07.1991 of mutation in favour of deceased Kamal Singh is not a simple
mutation order. He had applied for declaring him as title holder of the aforesaid
lands on the ground that he is sub-tenant since 1986 and he has acquired title
over the disputed lands by operation of Section 169 & 190 of Madhya Pradesh
Land Revenue Code, 1959. Thereafter, registering revenue case No. 23- –
6/1990-91 and after recording evidence of the concerned persons in that case,
aforesaid order dated 18.07.1991 was passed in favour of Kamal Singh and
based on that mutation was made in favour of Kamal Singh on the aforesaid
land. Aforesaid order has been affirmed in appeal by the Revenue Authorities.
From perusal of the relevant paragraphs 6, 10, 11, 13, 15, 17 & 18 of the plaint,
it is amply clear that plaintiffs were having knowledge of the aforementioned
sale deeds and revenue proceedings which gave title to the deceased Kamal
Singh since April 2012. Instant case has been filed after exhausting and loosing
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 27-04-2026
16:36:34
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11221
22 C.R. No. 192/2020
the case before the Revenue Authorities, creating illusory cause of action by
way of clever drafting.
19. Bald allegations with regard to fabrication and forgery have been
made by the plaintiffs, but that will not arrest the limitation for cause of action
which has clearly arose in the month of April, 2012 and for that suit should
have been filed within a period of three years from the date when cause of
action first accrued (April 2012) as per Article 58 & 59 of the Limitation Act,
but suit has been admittedly filed on 24.10.2018 more than 6 years after the
approval of the cause of action, hence the suit by no stretch of imagination can
be said to be within a period of limitation and it is hopelessly barred by law of
limitation. Observation by the Apex Court in para 30 to 32 with regard to
period of limitation under Article 58 & 59 of the Limitation Act is also worth
mention, which is reproduced hereunder:-
“30. Insertion by the Parliament of the word “first” under
the column „Time from which period begins to run‟ in
Article 58 is not without a purpose. Such word, which was
not there in the Limitation Act, 1908, has been designedly
used in Article 58 to signify that a suit to obtain declaration
(other than those referred to in Articles 56 and 57) has to be
instituted within three years of „when the right to sue first
accrues‟. In simpler terms, if cause of action to sue means
accrual of the right for an actionable claim, it is the moment
from which such right first accrues that the clock of
limitation would start ticking. Thus, even though cause of
action for instituting a suit might arise on varied occasions
and/or at different times, what is material and assumesSignature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 27-04-2026
16:36:34
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1122123 C.R. No. 192/2020
relevance for computing the period of limitation under
Article 58 is the date when the right to sue first accrues to
the aggrieved suitor. Though dominus litus, a suitor cannot
pick and choose a time for approaching court. The period of
limitation in terms of Article 58 being 3 (three) years, the
prescribed period has to be counted from that date of the
right to sue first accruing and the suit, if not instituted
within 3 (three) years therefrom, would become barred by
time.
31. Similarly, under the column „Time from which period
begins to run‟ in Article 59 providing for a three-year
limitation period for cancellation of an instrument, the
ordainment is that the period will run „when the facts
entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument … cancelled or
set aside … first become known to him‟. Any suit seeking
cancellation of a particular instrument as void or voidable
would be governed by Article 59 and, therefore, has to be
instituted within 3 (three) years from date the suitor could
be said to have first derived knowledge of the fact of such an
instrument (which, according to him, is void or voidable)
coming into existence. The word “first” in Article 59 would
ordinarily have the same connotation as in Article 58.
32. In the present case, the appellants had been put in
possession of the suit property in furtherance of the sale
deeds executed by and between Ramesh Chand and the
former after the same were registered. Hence, a civil suit
seeking declaration of status or right simplicitor would not
have sufficed for the plaintiffs since admittedly, they were
required to seek further relief. A composite suit seeking
cancellation, recovery of possession and injunction is what
was required to be instituted, as distinguished from a suit
seeking only recovery of possession. There is an admission
of the plaintiffs on record that the appellants had moved
into the suit property soon after execution of the sale deeds.
Thus, the facts and circumstances were such that in
addition to seeking cancellation of the sale deeds, since
registered, the plaintiffs had to and did seek recovery of
possession. Cancellation, we are inclined to hold, was theSignature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 27-04-2026
16:36:34
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1122124 C.R. No. 192/2020
primary relief in the circumstances with recovery of
possession being the ancillary relief.”
20. Aforementioned observations also fortify view of this Court that in
a suit like instant one where composite relief seeking avoiding/cancellation of
sale deeds and recovery of possession is filed where primary relief is relief of
declaration without which no recovery of the possession of suit lands can be
obtained, suit will be covered by limitation as provided under Article 58 & 59
of the Limitation Act and not by Section 65 of the Limitation Act as argued by
the respondents. In the instant case recovery of possession is not based on title
as alleged title of the predecessors of the plaintiffs had already passed in favour
of deceased Kamal Singh and plaintiffs have even no semblance title in them
unless they could get annulled order by Revenue Authorities giving title to
deceased Kamal Singh which resulted in his mutation in revenue records and
and also sale deeds in dispute executed by Kamal Singh. It is well settled that
by creating illusion of cause of action by way of clever drafting is not permitted
and that cannot save a hopelessly time barred civil suit.
21. As far as contentions with regard to forgery and fraud allegedly
committed by Kamal Singh, they are of no consequence as plaint is lacking the
specific particulars required by law to attract Section 17 of the Limitation Act
which postpones the limitation in case of fraud only when the plaintiff
discovers the fraud or when with the exercise of reasonable due diligence have
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 27-04-2026
16:36:34
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11221
25 C.R. No. 192/2020
discovered it. In the instant case, even if there was any fraud as alleged by the
plaintiffs, committed by late Kamal Singh, it came in the knowledge of the
plaintiffs in April, 2012 as per the plaint allegations itself where from cause of
action ensued, therefore, this provision of Section 17 will also not come to the
rescue of the plaintiffs. In para 17 of the judgment of Apex Court in Santosh
Devi v. Sunder, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1808, has observed that registered
document is presumed to be validly executed unless it is rebutted. Relevant
para graph is extracted as under:-
“17. To appreciate the findings arrived at by the Courts below,
we must first see on whom the onus of proof lies. The record
reveals that the disputed document is a registered sale deed. It is
not in dispute that the petitioner has signed the sale deed. We
are, therefore, guided by the settled legal principle that a
document is presumed to be genuine if the same is registered, as
held by this Court in Prem Singh v. Birbal, (2006) 5 SCC 353.
The relevant portion of the said decision reads as below:
“27. There is a presumption that a registered document is
validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima facie
would be valid in law. The onus of proof, thus, would be on a
person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption. In the
instant case, Respondent 1 has not been able to rebut the said
presumption.”
(Emphasis supplied)
22. In case of Uma Devi v. Anand Kumar, (2025) 5 SCC 198 : 2025
SCC OnLine SC 703 at page 203 Hon‟ble the Apex Court has also dealt with
knowledge of the registered documents to the public in general as these
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 27-04-2026
16:36:34
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11221
26 C.R. No. 192/2020
documents are in public domain. Relevant paragraphs are reproduced as under:-
“13. A registered document provides a complete account of a
transaction to any party interested in the property. This Court
in Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. (2) v. State of
Haryana [Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. (2) v. State of
Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 656 : (2012) 1 SCC (Civ) 351 : (2012)
169 Comp Cas 133 : (2012) 340 ITR 1] held as under : (SCC pp.
664-65, para 15)
“15. … „17. … Registration of a document [when it is
required by law to be, and has been effected by a registered
instrument] [Ed. : Section 3 Explanation I TPA, reads as
follows:”S. 3 Expln. I–Where any transaction relating to
immovable property is required by law to be and has been
effected by a registered instrument, any person acquiring such
property or any part of, or share or interest in, such property
shall be deemed to have notice of such instrument as from the
date of registration….”(emphasis supplied)]] gives notice to the
world that such a document has been executed.
18. Registration provides safety and security to transactions
relating to immovable property, even if the document is lost or
destroyed. It gives publicity and public exposure to documents
thereby preventing forgeries and frauds in regard to transactions
and execution of documents. Registration provides information to
people who may deal with a property, as to the nature and extent
of the rights which persons may have, affecting that property. In
other words, it enables people to find out whether any particular
property with which they are concerned, has been subjected to
any legal obligation or liability and who is or are the person(s)
presently having right, title, and interest in the property. It gives
solemnity of form and perpetuate documents which are of legal
importance or relevance by recording them, where people may
see the record and enquire and ascertain what the particulars
are and as far as land is concerned what obligations exist with
regard to them. It ensures that every person dealing with
immovable property can rely with confidence upon the
statements contained in the registers (maintained under the said
Act) as a full and complete account of all transactions by whichSignature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 27-04-2026
16:36:34
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1122127 C.R. No. 192/2020
the title to the property may be affected and secure
extracts/copies duly certified.‟ [Ed. : As observed in Suraj Lamp
& Industries (P) Ltd. (1) v. State of Haryana, (2009) 7 SCC 363,
pp. 367-68, paras 17-18.] “
14. Applying this settled principle of law, it can safely be
assumed that the predecessors of the plaintiffs had notice of the
registered sale deeds (executed in 1978), flowing from the
partition that took place way back in 1968, by virtue of them
being registered documents. In the lifetime of Mangalamma,
these sale deeds have not been challenged, neither has partition
been sought. Thus, the suit (filed in the year 2023) of the
plaintiffs was prima facie barred by law. The plaintiffs cannot
reignite their rights after sleeping on them for 45 years.”
23. In view of Article 58 & 59 of Schedule appended to Limitation
Act, 1963 and in conjunction with meaningful reading of the plaint averments
and the documents filed therewith, this Court is of the considered view that
plaint does not disclose any real cause of action and the suit is manifestly
barred by limitation.
24. From perusal of the impugned order (Annexure P/1) which is
under challenge, it is apparent that the learned trial Court holding that point of
limitation is mixed question of facts and law, hence suit cannot be dismissed
under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. The aforesaid observation is perverse in the
facts and circumstances of the case where from bare perusal of averments in the
plaint itself reveal that suit is barred by law of limitation. It is no inflexible rule
that the point of limitation is always a mixed question of fact and law and plaint
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 27-04-2026
16:36:34
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11221
28 C.R. No. 192/2020
cannot be rejected. Where bar of limitation is clearly and undisputedly
ascertainable from the averments of the plaint as in the instant case, the same
can be rejected. In case of much celebrated judgment in Dahiben (supra),
Court itself rejected the plaint on the ground as it was clearly made out from
the averments of the plaint that it is barred by limitation.
25. Upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that in the instant case, it has
been found that illusion of cause of action is created to frustrate the point of
limitation, whereas there was no actual cause of action to file the suits and the
suits for the reliefs claimed were barred by limitation.
26. Resultantly, this Civil Revision having substance succeeds and is
hereby allowed and impugned order dated 13.01.2020 (Annexure P/1) passed in
Civil Suit No. 1115/2018 by XX Additional District Judge Indore is hereby set
aside. Application filed by the applicant under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC
before the trial Court is allowed and the plaint filed in the aforesaid Civil Suit
deserves to be and is hereby rejected entailing dismissal of aforementioned suit.
Pending IAs, if any, stand closed.
No order as to costs.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
Soumya
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 27-04-2026
16:36:34
[ad_1]
Source link
