MANU/SC/0508/2020

Equivalent/Neutral Citation: 2020(214)AIC 92, AIR2020SC 3310, 2020(5)ALD17, 2020 (143) ALR 689, 2020(4)ALT295, 2020(4)BLJ599,
2020(4)BomC R232, 2020 (2) C C C 449 , 2021(1)C ivilC C (S.C .), 2020(5)C TC 471, 2020(II)C LR(SC )248, 2020 INSC 450, 2020(4)JKJ101[SC ],
2020(4)KLT453, 2021-1-LW200, (2020)199PLR460, 2020(3)RC R(C ivil)98, 2021 150 RD463, 2020(4)RLW2961(SC ), 2020(8)SC ALE469,
(2020)16SC C 366, (2020)7SC C 366, 2020 (6) SC J 481, [2020]5SC R694, 2020(3)ShimLC 1656

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 9519 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 11618 of 2017)
Decided On: 09.07.2020
Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (D) thr. L.Rs. and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
L. Nageswara Rao and Indu Malhotra, JJ.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Harin P. Raval, Sr. Adv., Gaurav Agrawal, Nipun
Saxena, Kartikey Kanojiya and Sukanya Singh, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: Nakul Dewan, Sr. Adv., Pradhuman Gohil, Taruna Singh
Gohil, Ranu Purohit, Shiva P., Sambit Nanda, Praveen Kumar Rai, Hemal Kiritkumar
Sheth, P.S. Sudheer, Rishi Maheshwari, Mayuri Nayyar Chawla, Anne Mathew, Bharat
Sood and Shruti Jose, Advs.
Case Note:
Civil -Cancellation of Sale Deed - Rejection of Plaint - Barred by Limitation -
Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Plot of
agricultural land of old tenure (suit property) owned by Plaintiff under
restrictive tenure - Permission sought from the Collector was granted - Suit
property was sold to Respondent No. 1 vide registered Sale Deed -
Respondent No. 1 issued 36 cheques towards sale consideration - Respondent
No. 1 subsequently sold the suit property to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein
vide registered Sale Deed - Plaintiffs filed Suit against Respondent No. 1, also
impleading subsequent purchasers for cancellation of Sale Deed and declaring
the same illegal and void - Plaintiff contended that Respondent No. 1 has not
paid the agreed consideration amount - Respondent No. 1 was alleged of
taking undue advantage of Plaintiff's illiteracy and handing them bogus
cheques - Subsequent purchasers filed application for rejection of plaint, it
being time barred - Trial Court allowed the application and as an effect, suit
was dismissed - High Court affirmed the findings of Trial Court - Hence, the
present appeal - Whether the plaint was rightly rejected?
Facts:
Suit plot of agricultural land of old tenure was in the ownership of the
Plaintiffs. The land was under restrictive tenure as per Section 73AA of the
Land Revenue Code. The Plaintiffs filed an application before the Collector to
obtain permission for selling the suit property to Respondent No. 1 which was
non-irrigated, and stated that they had no objection to the sale of the suit
property. The Collector after carrying out verification of the title of the
Plaintiffs, permitted sale of the suit property, and fixed the sale price of the
17-01-2025 (Page 1 of 15) www.manupatra.com Dipesh Andharia
suit property as per the jantri issued by the State Government. The Collector
granted permission for the sale subject to the terms and conditions contained
in Section 73AA of the Land Revenue Code. It was stipulated that the
purchaser shall make the payment by cheque, and reference of the payment
shall be made in the Sale Deed. After obtaining permission from the Collector,
the Plaintiffs sold the suit property to Respondent No. 1 who had issued 36
cheques towards payment of sale consideration in favour of the Plaintiffs. The
Respondent No. 1 subsequently sold the suit property to Respondent Nos. 2
and 3 herein vide registered Sale Deed. Plaintiffs filed Special Civil Suit
against the original purchaser i.e. Respondent No. 1, and also impleaded the
subsequent purchasers i.e. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as Defendants praying
that the Sale Deed be cancelled and declared as being illegal, void, ineffective
and not binding on them, on the ground that the sale consideration fixed by
the Collector was not been paid in entirety by Respondent No. 1. Respondent
Nos. 2 and 3 filed an Application for rejection of the Plaint contending that
the suit filed by the Plaintiffs was barred by limitation, and that no cause of
action had been disclosed in the plaint.The Trial Court held that the suit was
barred by limitation. High Court was of the view that the suit could not be
permitted to be continued even with respect to the subsequent Sale Deed
dated 01.04.2013. The Plaintiffs had not raised any allegation against
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, and there was no privity of contract between the
Plaintiffs and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
Held, while rejecting the Appeal:
The remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 is an independent and special remedy,
wherein the Court is empowered to summarily dismiss a suit at the threshold,
without proceeding to record evidence, and conducting a trial, on the basis of
the evidence adduced, if it is satisfied that the action should be terminated on
any of the grounds contained in this provision. The underlying object of Order
VII Rule 11 (a) is that if in a suit, no cause of action is disclosed, or the suit
is barred by limitation Under Rule 11(d), the Court would not permit the
Plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in the suit. In such a case,
it would be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation, so that further
judicial time is not wasted. [12.1]
Even if the averments of the Plaintiffs are taken to be true, that the entire
sale consideration had not in fact been paid, it could not be a ground for
cancellation of the Sale Deed. The Plaintiffs may have other remedies in law
for recovery of the balance consideration, but could not be granted the relief
of cancellation of the registered Sale Deed. The suit filed by the Plaintiffs was
vexatious, meritless, and does not disclose a right to sue. Trial Court rightly
exercised power under Order VII Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure. Civil Appeal
dismissed with costs [15.3], [16]

JUDGMENT
Indu Malhotra, J.
1 . The present Civil Appeal has been filed to challenge the impugned Judgment and
Order dated 19.10.2016 passed by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court, which
affirmed the Order of the Trial Court, allowing the application filed by Defendant Nos. 2
17-01-2025 (Page 2 of 15) www.manupatra.com Dipesh Andharia
and 3/Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein Under Order VII Rule 11(d), Code of Civil
Procedure holding that the suit filed by the Appellant and Respondent Nos. 9 to 13
herein (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiffs") was barred by limitation.
2. The subject-matter of the present proceedings pertains to a plot of agricultural land
of old tenure, admeasuring approximately 8701 sq. mtrs. in Revenue Survey No. 610,
Block No. 573 situated in village Mota Varachha, Sub-District Surat (hereinafter referred
to as the "suit property") which was in the ownership of the Plaintiffs.
3. The land was under restrictive tenure as per Section 73AA of the Land Revenue Code.
The Plaintiffs filed an application dated 13.05.2008 before the Collector, Surat to obtain
permission for selling the suit property to Respondent No. 1/Defendant No. 1, which
was non-irrigated, and stated that they had no objection to the sale of the suit property.
4. The Collector vide Order dated 19.06.2009, after carrying out verification of the title
of the Plaintiffs, permitted sale of the suit property, and fixed the sale price of the suit
property as per the jantri issued by the State Government @ Rs. 2000/- per sq. mtr.,
which would work out to Rs. 1,74,02,000/-. The Collector granted permission for the
sale subject to the terms and conditions contained in Section 73AA of the Land Revenue
Code. It was stipulated that the purchaser shall make the payment by cheque, and
reference of the payment shall be made in the Sale Deed.
5. After obtaining permission from the Collector, the Plaintiffs sold the suit property to
Respondent No. 1 herein vide registered Sale Deed dated 02.07.2009.
Respondent No. 1 - purchaser issued 36 cheques for Rs. 1,74,02,000 towards payment
of the sale consideration in favour of the Plaintiffs, the details of which were set out in
the registered Sale Deed dated 02.07.2009.
6. The Respondent No. 1 subsequently sold the suit property to Respondent Nos. 2 and
3 herein vide registered Sale Deed dated 01.04.2013, for a sale consideration of Rs.
2,01,00,000/-.
7 . On 15.12.2014, the Plaintiffs filed Special Civil Suit No. 718/2014 before the
Principal Civil Judge, Surat against the original purchaser i.e. Respondent No. 1, and
also impleaded the subsequent purchasers i.e. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as Defendants.
It was inter alia prayed that the Sale Deed dated 02.07.2009 be cancelled and declared
as being illegal, void, ineffective and not binding on them, on the ground that the sale
consideration fixed by the Collector, had not been paid in entirety by Respondent No. 1.
The Plaintiffs contended that they were totally illiterate, and were not able to read and
write, and were only able to put their thumb impression on the Sale Deed dated
02.07.2009. The Sale Deed was obtained without payment of full consideration. The
Respondent No. 1 had paid only Rs. 40,000 through 6 cheques, and remaining 30
cheques for Rs. 1,73,62,000 were "bogus" cheques. The Plaintiffs prayed for
cancellation of the Sale Deed dated 02.07.2009, and also prayed that the subsequent
Sale Deed dated 01.04.2013 be declared as illegal, void and ineffective; and, the
physical possession of the suit property be restored to the Plaintiffs.
8. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed an Application for Rejection of the Plaint Under Order
VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, contending that the suit filed by
the Plaintiffs was barred by limitation, and that no cause of action had been disclosed in
the plaint.

17-01-2025 (Page 3 of 15) www.manupatra.com Dipesh Andharia

It was inter alia submitted that the Plaintiffs had admitted the execution of the Sale
Deed dated 02.07.2009 in favour of Respondent No. 1 before the Sub-Registrar, Surat.
The only dispute now sought to be raised was that they had not received a part of the
sale consideration. This plea was denied as being incorrect.
It was further submitted that if the Sale Deed dated 02.07.2009 was being challenged,
then the suit ought to have been filed within three years i.e. on or before 02.07.2012.
It was further submitted that pursuant to the execution of the registered Sale Deed
dated 02.07.2009, the Plaintiffs had participated in the proceedings before the Revenue
Officer for transfer of the suit property in the revenue records in favour of Respondent
No. 1. On that basis, the suit property had been transferred to Respondent No. 1 vide
Hakk Patrak Entry No. 6517 dated 24.07.2009. Before certifying the said entry, notice
Under Section 135D of the Land Revenue Code had been duly served on the Plaintiffs,
and ever since, Respondent No. 1 had been paying the land revenue on the suit
property, and taking the produce therefrom.
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 further submitted that they had purchased the suit property
from Respondent No. 1 after verifying the title, and inspecting the revenue records. The
Respondent No. 1 had sold the suit property vide a registered Sale Deed dated
01.04.2013, on payment of valuable consideration of Rs. 2,01,00,000/-. Pursuant
thereto, the suit property was transferred in the name of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in
the revenue records.
It was further submitted that the Plaintiffs, with a view to mislead the Court, had
deliberately filed copies of the 7/12 extracts dated 20.07.2009, which was prior to the
mutation being effected in the name of Respondent No. 1. It was submitted that the suit
was devoid of any merit, and clearly time-barred, and liable to be rejected.
9 . The Trial Court carried out a detailed analysis of the averments in the plaint
alongwith the documents filed with the plaint, including the registered Sale Deed dated
02.07.2009, executed by the Plaintiffs. The undisputed facts which emerged from the
averments in the plaint was that the suit property was of restrictive tenure Under
Section 73AA of the Land Revenue Code. Since the Plaintiffs were in dire need of
money, and wanted to sell the suit property to Respondent No. 1, they had filed an
application before the Collector, Surat on 13.05.2008 to obtain permission for sale of
the suit property. The Collector vide Order dated 19.06.2009 granted permission to the
Plaintiffs and fixed the sale price at Rs. 1,74,02,000/- which was to be paid through
cheques. It was contended in the plaint that the Respondent No. 1 had in fact paid only
R s . 40,000/-, and false cheques of Rs. 1,73,62,000/- were issued, which remained
unpaid.
On a perusal of the registered Sale Deed dated 02.07.2009, [marked as Exhibit 3/9] it
was noted that the Plaintiffs had in fact accepted and acknowledged the payment of the
full sale consideration from Respondent No. 1, through cheques which were issued prior
to the execution of the Sale Deed, during the period 07.07.2008 to 02.07.2009.
As per the Plaintiffs, the Sale Deed was executed on 02.07.2009 in favour of
Respondent No. 1, which was registered before the Office of the Sub-Registrar, for
which the Plaintiffs would have remained personally present. The transaction having
been executed through a registered document, was in the public domain, and in the
knowledge of the Plaintiffs right from the beginning.
The Trial Court noted that there was no averment in the plaint that the cheques had not
17-01-2025 (Page 4 of 15) www.manupatra.com Dipesh Andharia
been received by them. Once the cheques were received by them, in the normal course,
they would have presented the cheques for encashment within 6 months. The Court held
that had the Plaintiffs not been able to encash 30 cheques, a complaint ought to have
been filed, or proceedings initiated for recovery of the unpaid sale consideration. There
was however, nothing on record to show that the Plaintiffs had made any complaint in
this regard for a period of over 5 years.
The Plaintiffs also failed to produce the returned cheques, their passbooks, bank
statements, or any other document to support their averments in the plaint.
A notice for transfer of the suit property in the revenue records Under Section 135D was
served on the Plaintiffs, to which no objection was raised. The name of Respondent No.
1 was entered into the revenue records, which was certified by the Revenue Officer.
The Trial Court held that the period of limitation for filing the suit was 3 years from the
date of execution of the Sale Deed dated 02.07.2009. The suit was filed on 15.12.2014.
The cause of action as per the averments in the plaint had arisen when the Defendant
No. 1/Respondent No. 1 had issued 'false' or 'bogus' cheques to the Plaintiffs in 2009.
The suit for cancellation of the Sale Deed dated 02.07.2009 could have been filed by
2012, as per Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The suit was however filed
on 15.12.2014, which was barred by limitation.
The suit property was subsequently sold by Respondent No. 1 to Respondent Nos. 2 and
3 by a registered Sale Deed dated 01.04.2013. Before purchasing the suit property, the
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had issued a public notice on 14.08.2012. The Plaintiffs did
not raise any objection to the same.
The Trial Court, on the basis of the settled position in law, held that the suit of the
Plaintiffs was barred by limitation, and allowed the application Under Order VII Rule
11(d) Code of Civil Procedure.
10. Aggrieved by the Judgment dated 12.08.2016 passed by the Sr. Civil Judge, Surat,
the Plaintiffs filed First Appeal No. 2324/2016 before the High Court of Gujarat at
Ahmedabad.
The Division Bench of the High Court took note of the fact that the Plaintiffs did not
deny having executed the registered Sale Deed dated 02.07.2009 in favour of
Respondent No. 1. In the said Sale Deed, it was specifically admitted and acknowledged
by the Plaintiffs that they had received the full sale consideration. The Sale Deed
contained the complete particulars with respect to the payment of sale consideration by
Respondent No. 1 through 36 cheques, the particulars of which were recorded therein.
Since the execution of the Sale Deed was not disputed, and the conveyance was duly
registered in the presence of the Plaintiffs before the Sub-Registrar, the Sale Deed could
not be declared to be void, illegal, or ineffective.
The suit property was subsequently sold by Respondent No. 1 in favour of Respondent
Nos. 2 and 3 vide registered Sale Deed dated 01.04.2013 for a sale consideration of Rs.
2,01,00,000/-. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were bona fide purchasers for valuable
consideration.
The present suit for cancellation of the Sale Deed was filed by the Plaintiffs after a
period of over 5 years after the execution of the Sale Deed dated 02.07.2009, and 1
year after the execution of the Sale Deed dated 01.04.2013 by Respondent No. 1. It was
noted that prior to the institution of the suit on 15.12.2014, at no point of time did the
17-01-2025 (Page 5 of 15) www.manupatra.com Dipesh Andharia
Plaintiffs raise any grievance whatsoever, of not having received the full sale
consideration mentioned in the Sale Deed dated 02.07.2009. It was for the first time
that such an allegation was made after over 5 years from the date of execution of the
Sale Deed dated 02.07.2009.
Since the suit in respect of the Sale Deed dated 02.07.2009 was held to be barred by
law of limitation, the High Court was of the view that the suit could not be permitted to
be continued even with respect to the subsequent Sale Deed dated 01.04.2013. The
Plaintiffs had not raised any allegation against Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, and there was
no privity of contract between the Plaintiffs and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
The High Court rightly affirmed the findings of the Trial Court, and held that the suit
was barred by limitation, since it was filed beyond the period of limitation of three
years.
11. Aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and Order dated 12.08.2016 passed by the
High Court, the original Plaintiff No. 1 has filed the present Civil Appeal.
1 2 . We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, perused the plaint and
documents filed therewith, as also the written submissions filed on behalf of the parties.
12.1 We will first briefly touch upon the law applicable for deciding an application
Under Order VII Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as under:
11. Rejection of plaint.- The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:
(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(b) where the relief claimed in undervalued, and the Plaintiff on being
required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed
by the Court, fails to do so;
(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written
upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the Plaintiff, on being required
by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be
fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to
be barred by any law;
(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;
(f) where the Plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9
Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of
the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not
be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is
satisfied that the Plaintiff was prevent by any cause of
exceptional nature for correction the valuation or supplying the
requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time
fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would
cause grave injustice to the Plaintiff.
The remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 is an independent and special remedy, wherein the
Court is empowered to summarily dismiss a suit at the threshold, without proceeding to
17-01-2025 (Page 6 of 15) www.manupatra.com Dipesh Andharia
record evidence, and conducting a trial, on the basis of the evidence adduced, if it is
satisfied that the action should be terminated on any of the grounds contained in this
provision.
The underlying object of Order VII Rule 11 (a) is that if in a suit, no cause of action is
disclosed, or the suit is barred by limitation Under Rule 11(d), the Court would not
permit the Plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in the suit. In such a case,
it would be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation, so that further judicial time
is not wasted.
In Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi1 this Court held that 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.
12.2 The power conferred on the court to terminate a civil action is, however, a drastic
one, and the conditions enumerated in Order VII Rule 11 are required to be strictly
adhered to.
12.3 Under Order VII Rule 11, a duty is cast on the Court to determine whether the
plaint discloses a cause of action by scrutinizing the averments in the plaint2, read in
conjunction with the documents relied upon, or whether the suit is barred by any law.
12.4 Order VII Rule 14(1) provides for production of documents, on which the Plaintiff
places reliance in his suit, which reads as under:
Order 7 Rule 14: Production of document on which Plaintiff sues or
relies.-
(1) Where a Plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document in
his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such
documents in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the plaint is
presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the document and
a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint.
(2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the
Plaintiff, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or
power it is.
(3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the Plaintiff
when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or
annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall
not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his
behalf at the hearing of the suit.
(4) Nothing in this Rule shall apply to document produced for the cross
17-01-2025 (Page 7 of 15) www.manupatra.com Dipesh Andharia
 examination of the Plaintiff's witnesses, or, handed over to a witness
merely to refresh his memory.
Having regard to Order VII Rule 14 Code of Civil Procedure, the documents filed
alongwith the plaint, are required to be taken into consideration for deciding the
application Under Order VII Rule 11(a). When a document referred to in the plaint,
forms the basis of the plaint, it should be treated as a part of the plaint.
1 2 .5 In exercise of power under this provision, the Court would determine if the
assertions made in the plaint are contrary to statutory law, or judicial dicta, for deciding
whether a case for rejecting the plaint at the threshold is made out.
12.6 At this stage, the pleas taken by the Defendant in the written statement and
application for rejection of the plaint on the merits, would be irrelevant, and cannot be
adverted to, or taken into consideration.3
12.7 The test for exercising the power Under Order VII Rule 11 is that if the averments
made in the plaint are taken in entirety, in conjunction with the documents relied upon,
would the same result in a decree being passed. This test was laid down in Liverpool &
London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I and Anr., MANU/SC/0951/2003 :
(2004) 9 SCC 512 which reads as:
139. Whether a plaint discloses a cause of action or not is essentially a question
of fact. But whether it does or does not must be found out from reading the
plaint itself. For the said purpose, the averments made in the plaint in their
entirety must be held to be correct. The test is as to whether if the averments
made in the plaint are taken to be correct in their entirety, a decree would be
passed.
In Hardesh Ores (P.) Ltd. v. Hede & Co. MANU/SC/7671/2007 : (2007) 5 SCC 614 the
Court further held that it is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage, and to
read it in isolation. It is the substance, and not merely the form, which has to be looked
into. The plaint has to be construed as it stands, without addition or subtraction of
words. If the allegations in the plaint prima facie show a cause of action, the court
cannot embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations are true in fact.4
12.8 If on a meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly
vexatious and without any merit, and does not disclose a right to sue, the court would
be justified in exercising the power Under Order VII Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure.
12.9 The power Under Order VII Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure may be exercised by
the Court at any stage of the suit, either before registering the plaint, or after issuing
summons to the Defendant, or before conclusion of the trial, as held by this Court in the
judgment of Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/1185/2002 : (2003) 1 SCC
557. The plea that once issues are framed, the matter must necessarily go to trial was
repelled by this Court in Azhar Hussain (supra).
12.10 The provision of Order VII Rule 11 is mandatory in nature. It states that the
plaint "shall" be rejected if any of the grounds specified in Clause (a) to (e) are made
out. If the Court finds that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action, or that the suit
is barred by any law, the Court has no option, but to reject the plaint.
13. "Cause of action" means every fact which would be necessary for the Plaintiff to
prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to judgment. It consists of a bundle of
17-01-2025 (Page 8 of 15) www.manupatra.com Dipesh Andharia
material facts, which are necessary for the Plaintiff to prove in order to entitle him to
the reliefs claimed in the suit.
In Swamy Atmanand v. Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam MANU/SC/0287/2005 : (2005) 10
SCC 51 this Court held:
24. A cause of action, thus, means every fact, which if traversed, it would be
necessary for the Plaintiff to prove an 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 an
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.
I n T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal and Anr. MANU/SC/0034/1977 : (1977) 4 SCC
467 this Court held that while considering an application Under Order VII Rule 11 Code
of Civil Procedure what is required to be decided is whether the plaint discloses a real
cause of action, or something purely illusory, in the following words:
5. ...The learned Munsiff 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 VII,
Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure taking care to see that the ground mentioned
therein is fulfilled. And, if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of
action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing ...
Subsequently, in I.T.C. Ltd. v. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, MANU/SC/0968/1998
: (1998) 2 SCC 170 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.
If, however, by clever drafting of the plaint, it has created the illusion of a cause of
action, this Court in Madanuri Sri Ramachandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal
MANU/SC/0485/2017 : (2017) 13 SCC 174 held 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.
1 4 . The Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes a time-limit for the institution of all suits,
appeals, and applications. Section 2(j) defines the expression "period of limitation" to
mean the period of limitation prescribed in the Schedule for suits, appeals or
applications. Section 3 lays down that every suit instituted after the prescribed period,
shall be dismissed even though limitation may not have been set up as a defence. If a
suit is not covered by any specific article, then it would fall within the residuary article.
Articles 58 and 59 of the Schedule to the 1963 Act, prescribe the period of limitation for
filing a suit where a declaration is sought, or cancellation of an instrument, or
rescission of a contract, which reads as under:

17-01-2025 (Page 9 of 15) www.manupatra.com Dipesh Andharia

The period of limitation prescribed Under Articles 58 and 59 of the 1963 Act is three
years, which commences from the date when the right to sue first accrues.
In Khatri Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr., MANU/SC/1054/2011 :
(2011) 9 SCC 126 this Court held that the use of the word 'first' between the words
'sue' and '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 date when the right to sue first accrued.
A three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Gurdev Singh,
MANU/SC/0612/1991 : (1991) 4 SCC 1 held that the Court must examine the plaint
and determine when the right to sue first accrued to the Plaintiff, and whether on the
assumed facts, the plaint is within time. The words "right to sue" means the right to
seek relief by means of legal proceedings. The right to sue accrues only when the cause
of action arises. The suit must be instituted when the right asserted in the suit is
infringed, or when there is a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe such right by the
Defendant against whom the suit is instituted.
Order VII Rule 11(d) provides that where a suit appears from the averments in the
plaint to be barred by any law, the plaint shall be rejected.
15. Analysis and Findings
We have carefully perused the averments in the plaint read with the documents relied
upon.
15.1. On a reading of the plaint and the documents relied upon, it is clear that the
Plaintiffs have admitted the execution of the registered Sale Deed dated 02.07.2009 in
favour of Defendant No. 1/Respondent No. 1 herein.
Para 5 of the plaint reads as:
(5) ...Thus, subject of the aforesaid terms the Plaintiffs had executed sale deed
selling the suit property to the opponent No. 1 vide sale deed dated 02/07/2009
bearing Sr. No. 5158...
The case made out in the Plaint is that even though they had executed the registered
Sale Deed dated 02.07.2009 for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,74,02,000, an amount of
only Rs. 40,000 was paid to them. The remaining 31 cheques mentioned in the Sale
17-01-2025 (Page 10 of 15) www.manupatra.com Dipesh Andharia
Deed, which covered the balance amount of Rs. 1,73,62,000 were alleged to be "bogus"
or "false", and allegedly remained unpaid.
We find the averments in the Plaint completely contrary to the recitals in the Sale Deed
dated 02.07.2009, which was admittedly executed by the Plaintiffs in favour of
Respondent No. 1. In the Sale Deed, the Plaintiffs have expressly and unequivocally
acknowledged that the entire sale consideration was "paid" by Defendant No.
1/Respondent No. 1 herein to the Plaintiffs.
Clauses 3 and 4 of the Sale Deed are extracted hereinbelow for ready reference:
Since the full amount of consideration of the sale as decided above, has since
been paid by you the Vendees to we the Vendors of this sale deed, for which we
the Vendors of this sale deed acknowledge the same so, we or our descendants,
guardian or legal heirs is to take any dispute or objection in future that such
amount is not received, or is received less, and if we do so then, the same shall
be void by this deed and, if any loss or damage occurs due to the same then,
we the Vendors of this sale deed and descendants, guardians, legal heirs of we
the vendors are liable to the pay the same to you the vendees or your
descendants, guardian, legal heirs and you can recover the same by court
proceedings.
(4) We the party of Second part i.e. Vendors of the sale deed since received full
consideration on the above facts, the physical possession, occupancy of the land
or the property mentioned in this sale deed has been handed over to you the
Vendee of this sale deed, and that has been occupied and taken in possession of
the land or property mentioned in this sale deed by you the Vendee of this sale
deed by coming at the site and therefore, we the Vendors of this sale deed have
not to raise any dispute in the future that the possession of the land or the
property has not been handed over to you. ...
The Sale Deed records that the 36 cheques covering the entire sale consideration of Rs.
1,74,02,000 were "paid" to the Plaintiffs, during the period between 07.07.2008 to
02.07.2009.
15.2. If the case made out in the Plaint is to be believed, it would mean that almost
99% of the sale consideration i.e. Rs. 1,73,62,000 allegedly remained unpaid
throughout. It is, however inconceivable that if the payments had remained unpaid, the
Plaintiffs would have remained completely silent for a period of over 5 and �
years, without even issuing a legal notice for payment of the unpaid sale consideration,
or instituting any proceeding for recovery of the amount, till the filing of the present
suit in December 2014.
15.3. The Plaintiffs have made out a case of alleged nonpayment of a part of the sale
consideration in the Plaint, and prayed for the relief of cancellation of the Sale Deed on
this ground.
Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 provides as under:
54. 'Sale' defined.--'Sale' is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid
or promised or part-paid and part-promised.
The definition of "sale" indicates that there must be a transfer of ownership from one
person to another i.e. transfer of all rights and interest in the property, which was

17-01-2025 (Page 11 of 15) www.manupatra.com Dipesh Andharia

possessed by the transferor to the transferee. The transferor cannot retain any part of
the interest or right in the property, or else it would not be a sale. The definition further
indicates that the transfer of ownership has to be made for a "price paid or promised or
part paid and part promised". Price thus constitutes an essential ingredient of the
transaction of sale.
In Vidyadhar v. Manikrao and Anr. MANU/SC/0172/1999 : (1999) 3 SCC 573 this Court
held that the words "price paid or promised or part paid and part promised" indicates
that actual payment of the whole of the price at the time of the execution of the Sale
Deed is not a sine qua non for completion of the sale. Even if the whole of the price is
not paid, but the document is executed, and thereafter registered, the sale would be
complete, and the title would pass on to the transferee under the transaction. The non-
payment of a part of the sale price would not affect the validity of the sale. Once the
title in the property has already passed, even if the balance sale consideration is not
paid, the sale could not be invalidated on this ground. In order to constitute a "sale",
the parties must intend to transfer the ownership of the property, on the agreement to
pay the price either in praesenti, or in future. The intention is to be gathered from the
recitals of the sale deed, the conduct of the parties, and the evidence on record.
In view of the law laid down by this Court, even if the averments of the Plaintiffs are
taken to be true, that the entire sale consideration had not in fact been paid, it could
not be a ground for cancellation of the Sale Deed. The Plaintiffs may have other
remedies in law for recovery of the balance consideration, but could not be granted the
relief of cancellation of the registered Sale Deed.
We find that the suit filed by the Plaintiffs is vexatious, meritless, and does not disclose
a right to sue. The plaint is liable to be rejected Under Order VII Rule 11(a).
15.4. The Plaintiffs have averred in the plaint that the period of limitation commenced
on 21.11.2014, when they obtained a copy of the index of the Sale Deed dated
02.07.2009, and discovered the alleged fraud committed by Defendant No. 1.
The relevant extract from the plaint in this regard is set out hereinbelow:
(7) ... Not only that but also, on obtaining the copy of the index of the sale deed
of the acts committed by the Opponent No. 1, 4, 5 and on obtaining the certified
copy of the sale deed, we the Plaintiffs could come to know on 21-11-2014 that,
the Opponent No. 1 had in collusion with Opponent No. 4, 5 mentioned the false
cheques stated below in the so called sale deed with intention to commit fraud
and no any consents of we the Plaintiffs have also been obtained in that regard.
The said cheques have not been received to we the Plaintiffs or no any amounts
of the said cheques have been credited in accounts of we the Plaintiffs. Thus,
the cheques which have been mentioned in the agreement caused to have been
executed by the Opponent No. 1, the false cheques have been mentioned of the
said amounts. Not only that but also, the agricultural land under the suit had
been sold by the Opponent No. 1 to the Opponent No. 2 Dillipbhai Gordhanbhai
Sonani and the Opponent No. 3, Laljibhai Gordhanbhai Sonani on 1-4-2013 for
Rs. 2,01,00,000/- as if the said sale deed was having clear title deeds. On taking
out the copy of the said sale deed with seal and signature on 21-11-2014, it
could come to the knowledge of we the Plaintiffs. We the Plaintiffs have not
done any signature or witness on the said agreement. The said agreement is not
binding to we the Plaintiffs. Since the said agreement is since null, void and
invalid as well as illegal, therefore, no any Court fee stamp duty is required to be

17-01-2025 (Page 12 of 15) www.manupatra.com Dipesh Andharia

 paid by we the Plaintiff on the said agreement and for that we the Plaintiffs rely
upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in A.I.R. 2010, Supreme Court, Page
No. 2807. ...
The plea taken in the plaint that they learnt of the alleged fraud in 2014, on receipt of
the index of the Sale Deed, is wholly misconceived, since the receipt of the index would
not constitute the cause of action for filing the suit. On a reading of the plaint, it is clear
that the cause of action arose on the non-payment of the bulk of the sale consideration,
which event occurred in the year 2009. The plea taken by the Plaintiffs is to create an
illusory cause of action, so as to overcome the period of limitation. The plea raised is
rejected as being meritless and devoid of any truth.
15.5 The conduct of the Plaintiffs in not taking recourse to legal action for over a
period of 5 and � years from the execution of the Sale Deed in 2009, for
payment of the balance sale consideration, also reflects that the institution of the
present suit is an after-thought. The Plaintiffs apparently filed the suit after the property
was further sold by Respondent No. 1 to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, to cast a doubt on
the title of Respondent No. 1 to the suit property.
15.6 The Plaintiffs have placed reliance on the Order of the Collector dated 19.06.2009
with the plaint. The Order reveals that the permission was granted subject to the
fulfilment of certain conditions. Clause 4 of the permission states that:
(4) The purchaser of the land/property, shall have to make the payment of the
price of the land by cheque and its reference shall require to be made in the Sale
Deed.
If the Plaintiffs had a genuine grievance of nonpayment of the balance sale
consideration, the Plaintiffs could have moved for revocation of the permission granted
by the Collector on 19.06.2009.
Clause 6 of the Order provided that:
(6) On making violation of any of the aforesaid terms, the permission shall
automatically be treated as cancelled and, separate proceeding shall be taken up
for the violation of the terms and conditions.
The Plaintiffs did not make any complaint whatsoever to the Collector at any point of
time. The conduct of the Plaintiffs is reflective of lack of bona fide.
15.7 The present case is a classic case, where the Plaintiffs by clever drafting of the
plaint, attempted to make out an illusory cause of action, and bring the suit within the
period of limitation.
Prayer 1 of the plaint reads as:
1) The suit property being agricultural land of old tenure of Revenue Survey No.
610 whose block Number is 573 situated at village Mota Varachha, Sub-district:
Surat city, Dis: Surat has been registered by the opponent No. 1 of this case in
office of the Sub-Registrar (Katar Gam) at Surat vide Serial No. 5158 in book
No. 1. Since, the same is illegal, void, in-effective and since the amount of
consideration is received by the Plaintiffs, and by holding that it is not binding to
the Plaintiffs and to cancel the same, and since the sale deed as aforesaid suit
property has been executed by the opponent No. 1 to the opponent No. 2, 3, it

17-01-2025 (Page 13 of 15) www.manupatra.com Dipesh Andharia

 is registered in the office of Sub-registrar, Surat (Rander) on 01/04/2013 vide
serial No. 443 which is not binding to we the Plaintiffs. Since, it is illegal, void,
in-effective and therefore, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to cancel the same
and this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to send the Yadi in that regard to the
Sub-registrar, Surat (Karat Gam) and the Sub-Registrar (Rander) in regard to
the cancellation of both the aforesaid documents.
The Plaintiffs deliberately did not mention the date of the registered Sale Deed dated
02.07.2009 executed by them in favour of Respondent No. 1, since it would be evident
that the suit was barred by limitation. The prayer however mentions the date of the
subsequent Sale Deed i.e. 01.04.2013 when the suit property was further sold by
Respondent No. 1 to Respondent Nos. 2 & 3.
The omission of the date of execution of the Sale Deed on 02.07.2009 in the prayer
clause, was done deliberately and knowingly, so as to mislead the Court on the issue of
limitation.
15.8 The delay of over 5 and � years after the alleged cause of action arose in
2009, shows that the suit was clearly barred by limitation as per Article 59 of the
Limitation Act, 1963. The suit was instituted on 15.12.2014, even though the alleged
cause of action arose in 2009, when the last cheque was delivered to the Plaintiffs.
The Plaintiffs have failed to discharge the onus of proof that the suit was filed within the
period of limitation. The plaint is therefore, liable to be rejected Under Order VII Rule
11(d) of Code of Civil Procedure.
Reliance is placed on the recent judgment of this Court rendered in Raghwendra Sharan
Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead) by LRs.5 wherein this Court held the suit would be
barred by limitation Under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, if it was filed beyond three
years of the execution of the registered deed.
15.9 The Plaintiffs have also prayed for cancellation of the subsequent Sale Deed dated
01.04.2013 executed by Respondent No. 1 in favour of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3; since
the suit in respect of the 1st Sale Deed dated 02.07.2009 is rejected both under clauses
(a) and (d) of Order VII Rule 11, the prayer with respect to the 2nd Sale Deed dated
01.04.2003 cannot be entertained.
16. The present suit filed by the Plaintiffs is clearly an abuse of the process of the
court, and bereft of any merit.
The Trial Court has rightly exercised the power Under Order VII Rule 11 Code of Civil
Procedure, by allowing the application filed by Respondent Nos. 2 & 3, which was
affirmed by the High Court.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present Civil Appeal is dismissed with costs of
Rs. 1,00,000/- payable by the Appellant to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, within a period of
twelve weeks from the date of this Judgment.
Pending applications, if any, are accordingly disposed of.

1 MANU/SC/0284/1986 : 1986 Supp. SCC 315 Followed inMaharaj Shri

17-01-2025 (Page 14 of 15) www.manupatra.com Dipesh Andharia
Manvendrasinhji Jadeja v. Rajmata Vijaykunverba w/o Late Maharaja Mahedrasinhji,
MANU/GJ/0786/1998 : (1998) 2 GLH 823
2 Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I and Anr.,
MANU/SC/0951/2003 : (2004) 9 SCC 512.
3 Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Assistant Charity Commissioner, MANU/SC/0071/2004 :
(2004) 3 SCC 137
4 D. Ramachandran v. R.V. Janakiraman, MANU/SC/0154/1999 : (1999) 3 SCC 267;
See also Vijay Pratap Singh v. Dukh Haran Nath Singh, MANU/SC/0394/1962 : AIR
1962 SC 941.
5 Civil Appeal No. 2960/2019 decided on 13.03.2019.

© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

17-01-2025 (Page 15 of 15) www.manupatra.com Dipesh Andharia