Date of the case: March 13, 2019
Bench: This case was disposed of by Justice M. R. Shah (Single judge bench) in Supreme Court of India.
Facts
The main focus of the case is a registered deed of gift dated to the year 1981. The original plaintiff and his brother bought a piece of land in 1965 and in 1981 the appellant as a brother by the plaintiff sold his share of the land to the plaintiff. In the year 2001 the appellant filed a partition suit against his other brothers including defendant No 8 being the respondent. 10. The latter later brought a suit to challenge the gift deed and sought a court declaration to the effect that the deed was invalid or had no binding effect.
The appellant faulted the rejection of his application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure for failure to establish that the suit raising a challenge to the validity of the gift deed was brought long after the deed was executed; in this case after approximately 22 years from the date of its execution. The Supreme Court formulated its opinion considering the facts presented and the legal arguments. The appellant also highlighted the significance of the limitation period within the regard produced with the applicable case laws. In addressing the timing of the case, the nature of the suit filed, and the effect of the delay in litigating the gift deed before the Court. The respondent submitted that there were causes of action in the plaint including allegations of fraud and time of filing the suits was immediate after the Plaintiffs with knowledge of fraud 2015. The respondent also argued that the issue of limitation was a mixed one, in the sense that it had to be considered at the trial stage.
The Supreme Court was left with the decision as to whether the case was time-barred after all and whether the respondent did not intentionally try to avoid facing the restriction on time. One more argument that the Court paid attention to was the actual knowledge by the plaintiffs of the alleged fraud at an earlier stage. The case demonstrates how contentious issues such as property related legal proceedings and gift deeds as well as limitation laws’ application in civil cases may arise.
Issues raised
- Whether both the High Court and the trial court err in rejecting the Order 7 Rule 11 application, as argued by the appellant?
The appellant also contended that both the High Court and the Trial Court were wrong to have dismissed the Order 7 Rule 11 application at hand. The appellant also hotly contested that the courts acted wrongly by not rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was argued under the law of limitation by the appellant’s counsel that the suit challenging a registered gift from 1981 was made after a lapse of 22 years from the date of execution of the gift deed. It should be further stated that during the cross examination of the appellant’s witness the appellant’s counsel emphasised on that that the plaintiff deliberately did not seek to set aside the gift deed to avoid the suit being dismissed on grounds of limitation. The appellant cited a number of court cases to bolster their argument and pointed out that the courts should ignore the affidavits and any other information not present in the suit’s petition when considering an Order 7 Rule 11 application. His learned counsel in his argument made it clear that it ought to have come out clearly from the very onset whether the suit was vexatious and the claim grossly unmerited so that the court should outright dismiss the plaint in order to avoid abuse of the legal process. The appellant held reasons for the decisions based on legal provisions and cases to point out that the courts were wrong in not dismissing the plaint under O7. R 11.
- Whether there is a concern about the misuse of the legal process and the necessity for judges to scrutinise plaints to identify vexatious claims or those lacking a clear right to sue?
Yes, that is sure the misuse of the legal process and the need to make sure that the judges are very cautious in such a way to make sure that they are able to identify the types of plaints which are vexatious or which are not given a clear right for the suing. The Supreme Court has underscored this in T. Arivandandam v. T. V. Satyapal, the Court noted that if a plaint is ‘plainly vexatious’ and ‘otherwise meritless’ in the sense of not urgently indicating a clear right to sue then the judge is empowered under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint. Then the Court said that if with juggling words a cause of action is conjured, the judge must at the first hearing step in and, under Order 10 CPC, subject the party to examination as, ‘an activist judge is the only antidote to irresponsible litigation’. Also, in the case of Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society v. Ponniamman Educational Trust, the Court asserted that it is the ‘‘responsibility of the trial Court to determine the materials for the cause of action’’ and that the court should clearly mention every fact which the plaintiff needs to establish in order to get a decree as it is within their right. It has been held by the Court on numerous occasions that cause of action enshrines every fact which if denied, the plaintiff must prove to secure a right to judgement. It is thus not limited to the actual infringement that is alleged to be under suit but encompasses all material facts upon which said infringement was based.
- Whether there is a deliberate omission of requesting relief in the registered gift deed, leading to a request to quash and set aside the impugned orders?
Yes, this is through selective loss or silence, the plaintiff has deliberately failed to ask for the relief of setting aside the registered gift deed dated March 6, 1981 which gives thrust to the appellant’s plea for quashing and setting aside the impugned orders. The appellant contended that the plaintiff deliberately refrained from seeking declaration of gift deed a nullity to avoid the suit being thrown out on grounds of limitation since the suit seeking the declaration of a nullity was filed 22 years after the execution of at least one of the gift deeds. The plaintiff thus appeared to have deliberately left the specific prayer of setting aside the gift deed, especially to defeat limitation thus the appellant argued for the rejection of the Order 7 Rule 11 application under the specification that the courts were wrong in not rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of the Civil Procedure based on the legal first principles, authorities and similar cases given above.
- Whether it is crucial to consider evidence before determining if a suit is barred by law?
The Supreme Court when observing the case affirmed indeed that it is vital to consider evidence before labelling a suit as barred by law. The defendant applied under Order 7 Rule 11 to dismiss the plaint on the ground that the suit that questioned the validity of a gift deed in 1980 had been prescribed under Article 59 of the Limitation Act since the suit was filed seven times after 1981 that is 22 years later in 2003. However, both the trial court and High Court refused to register the application based on the premise that to decide the expiring limitation period it requires consideration of oral evidence as it is a mixed question of law and fact. The Supreme Court adhered to the views of the lower courts and held that the issue of limitation cannot be decided at the stage of preliminary objection since the plaintiff is specific in the plaint that he came to know the existence of the deed in 2001. It may thus for a period of the limitation allow the case that had been filed in 2003 to proceed. The Court observed that while deciding an Order 7 Rule 11 application the averments made in the plaint need to be only considered and if on these averments a cause of action emerges and is claimed, it cannot be rejected at the threshold.
Contention
The major contention that has arisen in this case relates to the plaintiff’s ability to sue to challenge the gift deed of 1981 on the grounds that the litigation is time-barred. It is therefore the defendant’s contention that the suit in issue is completely time barred under Article 59 of the Limitation Act which stipulates that a challenge of a gift deed must be done within a period of 3 years of the acquisition of the interests by the challengers. Limitation is often a mixed question of law and fact that both the parties should provide evidence.
The Supreme Court observed that the plaintiff has rather attempted to end up providing a suit within the restriction of limitation which is otherwise outside of law. The Court noted that for about 22 years neither the plaintiff nor his brother, the beneficiary of the gift, claimed the transaction was done in order to deceive a third party under the law. Not even his brother, who passed on in 2002, could ever challenge the ownership of the gift deed. It is significant to state that the Court held that as the decisions were already taken and as the suit is clearly barred by limitation; the plaint must be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
Rationale
The court noted that the suit filed by the respondent was way too long after around 22 years challenging the gift deed which should be completely time barred under the law of limitation. The appellant contended that the suit had no reasonable cause of action and thus should be dismissed under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) based on the provisions of the law of limitation. The court noted that the application was brought in accordance with Order 7 Rule 11 and, in addition, the legal principles that the appellant referred to by stating that there has to be a genuine cause of action and not a mere sham or an illusory cause of action. The court also said that the plaintiff had not taken advantage of such a loophole by not seeking to have the portion of the gift deed that would raise these issues set aside in the suit. Further the court said that the relief to be availed under Order 7 Rule 11 has to be done on the basis of averments contained in a plaint without considering the defence or written statement of a defendant. Relying on such legal precedents the court concluded that the suit ought to be rejected from the face of it as it did not have a genuine cause of action and rather harboured an illusory cause of action It meant to choke it right at the onset. In the end, all the arguments leaned towards whether the court preferred a strict application of the limitation of law, whether the cause of action was genuine, and whether Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC found part in the suit.
Defect of Law
- The suit is time barred under the law of limitation because it was filed after over 22 years after the execution of the gift deed in 1981 or 11 years past the limitation period of 12 years. Article 59 of the Limitation Act states that such suits have to be litigated within 3 years of gift deed. The plaintiff consciously chose to neglect the suit to set aside the gift deed so as to make the suit look like it is legally within the limitation period.
- The suit also does not reveal a ground for suing the defendant. It is hard to believe that the delay of 22 years to challenge the gift deed which the plaintiff himself signed and received in 1981 for the alleged unauthorised alienation of the suit land held in trust for him by the defendant. It can be said that the veracity of allegations in the plaint as a whole have made it clear that the defendant acquired no title or that the gift deed was a sham.
The courts ought to have dismissed the plaint at the stage of admission in light of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC as it is a barred suit by limitation and does not disclose a cause of action. The system of pleading cannot be exploited to the point of creating perceptions of a cause of action that are capable of running rings around Order 7 Rule 11. It is therefore imperative for the courts to ensure that the plaint is properly looked at under Order 7 Rule 11 and Order 10 CPC to ensure that such vexatious suits are thrown out.
Inference
Having made reference to the case above and done the required analysis of the case, the rational conclusion of the case is that the appellant’s application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC to reject the plaint should be allowed. Article 59 of the Limitation Act states that thirty years is a limitation period for a claim that is not mentioned in the act and the plaintiff’s suit challenging the 1981 gift deed 22 years later seems rather questionable. It is also clear that this suit is reckless and incapable of succeeding on the ground that the gift deed has not been challenged for over five years and it is hard to put forward a claim of right to sue. As such, what the court is supposed to consider is the averments in the plaint only and if it is considered that the plaint contains no material cause of action; then the offending plaint has to be rejected at the face of it. Another basis of the appellant who argued that the suit is time barred and lacking merit and hence the plaint to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC.
- Ananya Santhosh
Ramaiah College of Law (Bangalore)