Smt Ramadevi And Others vs Mahendra Singh

Court No. - 18

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4115 of 2018 Petitioner :- Smt. Ramadevi And 4 Others Respondent :- Mahendra Singh Counsel for Petitioner :- Arpit Agarwal,Akash Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Vashishtha Tiwari

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

Heard Shri Arpit Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Vashishtha Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent.

Petitioners are before this Court assailing the validity of order dated 17.03.2018 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Court no.3, Hathras in Civil Revision no.9 of 2017 (Mahendra Singh vs. Rama Devi), whereby, the order dated 17.01.2017 passed by the Trail Court, rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, has been set aside and the revision has been allowed. Further prayer has been made to reject the application dated 07.10.2016 filed by the defendant­respondent under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

Record in question reflects that Smt. Ramadevi (since deceased) had instituted a Civil Suit no.170/2014 (Smt. Ramadevi vs. Mahendra Singh) for cancellation of sale deeds dated 11.02.2005 and 10.03.2005 after declaring the sale deeds to be void. While the suit in question was at the stage of framing of issues, an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint was filed by the respondent/defendant on 07.10.2016 on the ground that the suit in question is barred by the provision of Section 59 of Limitation Act and Section 331 of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act. The said application has been objected by the petitioners on the ground that the jurisdiction for the cancellation of sale deed vest in the Civil Court and the suit is not at all barred by limitation as the period of limitation is to be computed from the date of knowledge. Thereafter, by the order dated 17.01.2017, the Trial Court has rejected the said application by holding that the plaintiff­petitioners have got the knowledge of sale deed only in the year 2014 and as such, the question of suit being barred under Section 59 of Limitation Act 1963 does not apply in the present case. Aggrieved with the said order, the defendant­ respondent has filed Civil Revision no.09/2017 (Mahendra Singh vs. Smt. Ramadevi and others) before the Additional District Judge, Court no.3, Hathras. The said revision was allowed by the Revisional Court vide order dated 17.03.2018 by holding that since the plaintiff­petitioners had affixed their thumb impressions on the disputed sale deeds so they had knowledge of the execution of the disputed sale deeds in the year 2005 instead of 2014 and as such, the said application is barred by the provisions of Section 59 of the Limitation Act 1955 and consequently the order dated 17.01.2017 was quashed and as such, the petitioners are before this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the suit in question is of civil nature and the objection that the same is barred under Section 331 of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act 1950 is not attracted. He further submits that so far as Section 59 of Limitation Act is concerned, the same provides that the limitation to challenge any sale deed commence from the date of knowledge and in the present case, from bare perusal of the contents of plaint in question, which was required to be seen for deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, it is crystal clear that petitioners have got the knowledge about the sale deeds in question only in the year 2014 and straightway they have proceeded to file the suit in question, and in this backdrop the Trial Court has rightly rejected the aforesaid application vide order dated 17.01.2017. He has also submitted that while passing the order impugned, the Revisional Court has transgressed and overstepped its jurisdiction as the order passed by the Trail Court dated 17.01.2017 does not at all dispose of any suit or proceeding relating to any rights of revisionist, nor it would occasion irreparable loss or any failure of justice to the respondent. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgement passed by the Apex Court in Chhotanben and others vs. Kiritbhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar and others 2018 (5) SCALE 472 as well as order passed by this Court in Civil Revision no.427/2011 (Smt. Shivpatti Devi and others vs. Yudhishthir Dhar Dubery and others 2016 (2) JCLR 386 (All.).

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the suit in question was filed for cancellation of sale deeds dated 11.02.2005 and 10.03.2005 and, therefore, the requisite period of three years period had already been lapsed and even the entire formalities were completed before the Sub­Registrar and the same cannot be disputed by the petitioners. He further submits that the Trial Court has passed the order dated 17.01.2017 in good conscience but the documents, which were produced before the Sub Registrar for the purpose of registration, have not at all been appreciated and even the objection so filed by the defendants have never been taken into account, whereas, the Revisional Court has rightly proceeded to allow the revision in question by holding that the plea of date of knowledge, as described in paragraph no.13 of the plaint, cannot be accepted as the sale deeds have been executed in the year 2005 and the mutation proceeding has already taken place and the name of defendant has already been mutated in the revenue record and in such a situation, the suit in question is barred under Section 59 of the Limitation Act a as well as Section 331 of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act and as such, this Court may not interfere in the order impugned.

Heard rival submission and perused the record.

In order to appreciate the controversy in hand, it would be appropriate to have a glance of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, which reads as follows:­ “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 is 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 returned 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 provision 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 prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature form correcting 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.”

As per clause 'd' of aforesaid provision, it is apparent that while deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Trial Court must watch that the plaint discloses any cause of action or not.

In view of the aforesaid provision, it would be appropriate to extract the relevant portion of the plaint in question, which reads as follows:­ “9& ;g fd okfnuh ;k fd mlds iq=k sa dk s izfroknh u s fookfnr tkyh] Qth Z / kk s[k s ij vk/ kkfjr nLrko st fnuk ad 11&2&2005 o fnuk ad 10&3&2005 dh okor eq[; eq[;

/ kk s[kk fd;k%& v& ;g fd fookfnr nLrko st fnuk ad 11&2&2005 okfnuh l s dtsZ dh fy[kkoV cryk;k x;k Fkk rFkk okfnuh dk s xk ao l s mlds iq=k sa d s }kjk izfroknh l s fy; s x; s dtsZ dh tekur n su s dh fy[kko V fy[kku s lknkokn yk;k x;k FkkA c& ;g fd okfnuh dk s fookfnr nLrko st fnuk ad 11&2&2005 i< +dj lquk;k o le>k;k ugh a x;k A l& ;g fd okfnuh l s fu'kku v ax wB k izfroknh u s fyf[k;k fd fo Lrj ij gh fookfnr fy[kko V ij ;g dgdj yxok; s Fk s fd ;g tekur dh fy[kko V fy[kh x;h g S dtk Z pqdrk gk su s ij [kkfjt djk n wax k A n& ;g fd okfnuh u s fookfnr fy[kko V fnuk ad 11&2&2005 ij viu s fu'kku v ax wB k tekur dh fy[kkoV le>dj gh fd; s Fk sA ;& ;g fd okfnuh u s fookfnr fy[kko V fnuk ad 11&2&2005 d s rgr ,d :i;k Hkh izfroknh l s ugh a fy;kA ;kfu fd fookfnr fy[kkoV d s rgr okfnuh dk s izfrQy ugh a fn;k x;kA j& ;g fd dCtk vkjkth d`f"k Hk wfe ftldk fooj.k fookfnr fy[kko V fnuk ad 11&2&2005 e sa fn;k x;k gSA ij dCTk izfroknh dk s ugh a fn;k x;k okfnuh dh d`f"k Hk wfe okni= d s v ar e sa of.kZr ij okfnuh dk gh dCtk gS rFkk jgk gSA y& ;g fd fookfnr nLrko st dh okor dk sb Z Hkh tkudkjh izfroknh u s ugh a gk su s nh vkSj u gh Lo; a bl okor tkudkjh okfnuh ;kfd mlds iq=k sa dk s izfroknh u s nhA g& ;g fd okfnuh dk s lc jftLVªkj d s lkeu s ugh a tku s fn;k Lo; a gh izfroknh fookfnr fy[kkoV dk s y sdj lc jftLVªkj d s lkeu s x;k Fkk okfnuh dk s fyf[k;k d s fcLrj ij gh cSBk fn;k Fkk A p wW fd fookfnr fy[kko V okfnuh dh uktkudkjh e sa izfroknh }kjk /kk s[k s o tky lkth l s fy[kkb Z x;h blh dkj.k fookfnr fy[kko V e sa okgeh cVokjs e sa feyh lEif Rr dk gokyk u n sdj lf Eefyr [kkrk [krkSuh d s vk/kkj ij n'kkZdj jdo s d s vk/ kkj ij fof/k fo:) fy[kkbZ x;h g SA u& ;g fd okfnuh d s lkeu s xokgk sa d s n Lr[kr ;kfd fu'kku ugh a gq; s Fk s u okfnuh d s fu'kku v ax wB k xokgku d s lkeu s gq; sA 10& ;g fd fookfnr nLrko st fnuk ad 10&3&2005 d s rgjhj djku s e sa izfroknh u s okfnuh d s lkFk eq[; eq[; fu Eufyf[kr /kk s[kk fd;k%& i& ;g fd izfroknh u s fookfnr n Lrko st fnuk ad 10&3&2005 dh fy[kko V dk s okfnuh o mlds iq= dk s fnuk ad 11&2&2005 d s fookfnr nLrko st fy[kko V tekur dtsZ dk s dtk Z pqdrk gk su s ij [kkfjth fy[kko V cryk;k Fkk vk Sj mlh okor izfroknh okfnuh d s iq= o okfnuh dk s dgdj yk;k Fkk A okfnuh u s fookfnr fy[kko V fnuk ad 10&3&2005 ij tekur dh fy[kkoV fnuk ad 11&2&2005 dk s [kkfjt dju s dh fy[kko V le> dj viu s fu'kku v ax wB k yxk; s Fk sA Q&;g fd fookfnr fy[kko V fnuk ad 10&3&2005 dk s okfnuh dk s i< +dj lquk;k le>k;k ugh a x;k cf Yd izfroknh }kjk tekur dh fy[kko V fnuk ad 11&2&2005 dk s [kkfjt djku s dh fy[kkoV cryk;kA Hk& ;g fd fookfnr fy[kkoV fnuk ad 10&3&2005 d s rgr okfnuh u s ,d :i;k Hkh ugh a fy;k u izfroknh }kjk okfnuh dk s fn;k gh x;k ;kfu fookfnr fy[kko V d s rgr izfrQy ugh a fn;k x;k D;k saf d okfnuh dk s fookfnr fy[kko V tekur dh fy[kkoV fnuk ad 11&2&2005 d s [kkfjt dju s dh fy[kko V crykb Z Fkh blfy; s izfroknh u s fookfnr fy[kkoV d s rgr tkfgj lEifRr d`f"k Hk wf e ij dCtk ugh a ek axk D;k saf d izfroknh okfnuh ;k fd mlds iq=k sa dk s fookfnr n Lrko st dh tkudkjh ugh a n su s n suk pkgrk FkkA okfnuh dk dCtk okni= d s vUr e sa of.k Zr viuh lEifRr ij yxkrkj jgk g S o gSA izfroknh dk fdlh izdkj dk dk sb Z gd o vf/kdkj o lEcU/ k o ljk sdkj okfnuh dh lEif Rr l s ugh a jgk gS u g SA ;& ;g fd p waf d /kk s[k s o tkylkth l s okfnuh o mlds iq=k sa dh uktkudkjh e sa fookfnr fy[kkoV fy[kh x;h bl dkj.k tk s lEifRr okfnuh dk s okgeh cVokjs e sa feyh g S mldk gokyk ugh a fn;k x;k cfYd jdok tkfgj dj l a;q Dr [kkr s d s vk/ kkj ij fy[kko V fy[kh x;hA 11& ;g fd okfnuh u s dHkh izfroknh l s viuh lEif Rr d s c spu s dk lk Snk ugh a fd;k u gh izfroknh u s dHkh okfnuh l s bl okor ckr dh vk Sj ugh fookfnr nk su k s nLrko stk sa d s rgr ,d :i;k Hkh okfnuh dk s ugh a izfrQy fn;k u okfnuh u s fy;k D;k saf d fookfnr nk suk sa n Lrko st tSlk n Lrko stk sa e sa n'kkZ;k x;k o Sl s fookfnr nLrko st okfnuh l s tkfgj gh ugh a fd; s x; s cf Yd okfnuh dk s izfroknh }kjk fnuk ad 11&2&2005 okyh fy[kko V dk s dtsZ dh tekur d s fy; s fy[kh x;h cryk;k Fkk rFkk n wljh fy[kkoV fnuk ad 10&3&2005 m Dr tekur dh fy[kko V dk s [kkfjt djku s okyh fy[kkoV cryk;k Fkk blh dkj.k u rk s okfnuh dk s mDr nk suk sa rFkk df Fkr fookfnr tkyh QthZ fy[kkoVk sa n Lrko stk sa d s rgr izfroknh }kjk izfrQy ugh a fn;k x;k vkSj u gh izfroknh }kjk okfnuh dk s lEif Rr ij dCtk gh ek axk u fy;k vkt Hkh okfnuh dk gh dCtk pyk vk jgk gSA p waf d okfnuh dk s viuh lEifRr dk s c spu s dh t:jr ugh a Fkh cf Yd okfnuh dh lEifRr okfnuh dh o`)koLFkk e sa okfnuh d s Hkj.k ik s"k .k chekjh vkfn lHkh d s fy; s vkenuh ,o a jgu s dk ,d ek= lk/ku g S blfy; s okfnuh viuh bl voLFkk e sa viuh vkenuh d s lk/ku dk s D;k sa c sp sxh A Hk& ;g fd fookfnr nLrko st dh okor dk sb Z Hkh tkudkjh izfroknh u s ugh a gk su s nh vkSj u gh Lo; a bl okor tkudkjh okfnuh ;kfd mlds iq=k sa dk s izfroknh u s nhA e& ;g fd okfnuh dk s lc jftLV ªkj d s lkeu s ugh a tku s fn;k Lo; a gh izfroknh fookfnr fy[kko V dk s y sdj lc jftLVªkj d s lkeu s x;k Fkk okfnuh dk s fyf[k;k d s fcLrj ij gh cSBk fn;k Fkk A p wW fd fookfnr fy[kko V okfnuh dh uktkudkjh e sa izfroknh }kjk /kk s[k s o tky lkth l s fy[kkb Z x;h blh dkj.k fookfnr fy[kko V e sa okgeh cVokjs e sa feyh lEif Rr dk gokyk u n sdj lf Eefyr [kkrk [krkSuh d s vk/kkj ij n'kkZdj jdo s d s vk/ kkj ij fof/k fo:) fy[kkbZ x;h g SA r& ;g fd okfnuh d s lkeu s xokgk sa d s n Lr[kr ;kfd fu'kku ugh a gq; s Fk s u okfnuh d s fu'kku v ax wB k xokgku d s lkeu s gq; sA 12& ;g fd izfroknh }kjk nk su k sa fy[kkoV sa /kk s[k s o tkylkth l s okfnuh o okfnuh d s iq=k sa dh uktkudkjh e sa fy[kkb Z x;h blfy; s m Dr nk su k sa fy[kkoV sa okfnuh dh okni= d s v ar e sa of.kZr lEifRr dh okor ugh a fy[kh x;h g S cf Yd lfEefyr [kkr s d s jdo s d s vk/ kkj ij lfEefyr [kkrk n'kkZr s gq; s fy[kh x;h gSA p w ¡fd okfnuh o m Dr yNeu fl ag dk okgeh cVokjk lu~ 1999 e sa ebZ e sa gh gk s pqdk gS nk su k sa viu s viu s Hkkxk sa tk s fd okgeh cVokjs e sa feys Fk s ij dkfot o n[khy pys vk jg s gS blfy; s Hkh fookfnr nk suk sa n Lrko st tkyh QthZ /kk s[k s ij vk/kkfjr fof/ k fo:) g S rFkk 'kq: l s gh 'k wU; n Lrko st g SA izfroknh dk s fookfnr tkyh QthZ n Lrko stk sa d s vk/kkj ij okfnuh dh okni= d s v ar e sa of.kZr lEif Rr e sa dk sb Z gd o vf/kdkj mRiUu ugh a gq; s gS vkSj okfnuh d s gd o vf/kdkj iz Hkkfor ugh a gk sr s gSA 13&;g fd fnuk ad 26&3&2014 dk s izfroknh vpkud okfnuh d s ikl vk;k vkSj okfnuh l s dgk fd og mldh lEif Rr ij dCtk djsxk A izfroknh dh bl /kedh dk dkj.k tc okfnuh u s izfroknh l s i wN k rk s izfroknh u s cryk;k fd mlds iq=k sa ij mldk dtk Z ckdh gS pqdrk ugh a dj jg s gS okfnuh u s tc izfroknh l s dgk fd dtkZ rk s ,d eghu s d s vUnj gh pqdrk dj fn;k Fkk vkSj pqdrk gk su s ij tekur dh fy[kkoV dk s vkiu s [kkfjt djk;k Fkk bl ij izfroknh u s dgk fd ;g dtkZ okn dk gS vkids c sV s dtk Z y sr s jgrs gS bl ij okfnuh u s dgk fd mlds c sV k s d s dtsZ dh otg l s mldh lEif Rr ij izfroknh dCtk D;k sa djsxk bl ij izfroknh u s okfnuh l s dgk fd mlu s mlls o mlds iq=k sa l s /kk s[kk djds tekur dh fy[kko V d s LFkku ij cSukek fnuk ad 11&3&2005 dk s vk/ k s Hkkx dk fy[kk fy;k Fkk vkSj okn e sa dtkZ dh tekur dh fy[kko V dk s [kkfjt djku s d s cgku s n wljk vk/k s Hkkx dk fnuk ad 10&2&2005 dk s fy[kk fy;k g S izfroknh dh ckr sa lqudj okfnuh lne sa e sa vk x;h vk Sj viu s iq=k sa dk s m Dr ckr tk s izfroknh }kjk okfnuh dk s ckrykbZ x;h Fkh viu s iq=k sa dk s crykb ZA ”

From bare perusal of the contents of plaint, it is clearly reflected that sons of petitioners have borrowed money from the defendant­respondent and when they were not in position to return the same, the mother of plaintiff­ petitioners has entered into an agreement with the defendant­respondent on 11.02.2005. Thereafter, the whole money has been returned to the defendant­respondent and on 10.03.2005, the mother of plaintiff­petitioners has put her thumb impression on a document in the impression of same being the document for rejection of said agreement and the plaintiff­petitioner nos.1/1 and 1/2 have also signed. In the said plaint, case has been set up that by playing fraud and manipulation, the defendant­respondent has obtained the aforesaid sale deeds and at no point of time, any sale consideration has ever been handed over to the mother of plaintiff­petitioners, even the sale deeds in question have been entered upon in respect of joint Rakba and not in respect of land of plaintiff­petitioners, whereas, the mother of plaintiff­petitioners and Laxman Singh have already got their land partitioned in the year 1999. Case has also been set up that at no point of time, the mother of plaintiff­petitioners have borrowed any money from the defendant­respondent, whereas, the same has been borrowed by the plaintiff­petitioners and adequately the same has been returned to the defendant­respondent and the plaintiff­petitioners. This much fact is also reflected that the mother of plaintiff­petitioners had got the knowledge of the said sale deed only when the defendant­ respondent has come up to threaten them to vacate the property in dispute in the year 2014 and immediately she has proceeded to file the suit in question.

It is a settled legal position that the power to reject a plaint under order VII Rule 11 must be exercised only if the court comes to a conclusion that even if all the allegations made in the plaint are proved, plaintiff would not be entitled to any relief whatsoever. In the present case, admittedly the plaintiff­petitioners are in possession over the property in dispute and at no point of time, even when the sale deed has been entered into in the year 2005, the possession has been taken over by the defendant­respondent.

It is consistent case of plaintiff­petitioners that sale deeds in question were obtained by playing fraud and they have got the knowledge of the same in the year 2014 only and in such a situation the question of suit being barred by limitation is a triable issue. The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff­petitioners that the Revisional Court has transgressed its jurisdiction while passing the order impugned, appears to have substance as the order passed by the Trial Court neither dispose of any suit or proceeding relating to any rights of revisionist, nor it would occasion irreparable loss or any failure of justice to the defendant­revisionist and the same is barred under Section 115(3) of C.P.C. as amended by the Code of Civil Procedure (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) Act 2003.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the law laid down in Chhotanben and others (supra) as well ass Smt. Shivpatti Devi and others (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the order passed by the Revisional Court dated 17.03.2018 cannot sustain and the same is set aside. The Trial Court is at liberty to proceed on the merit of the case after adducing evidence without influence of the observations made by the Revisional Court.

With these observations, Writ Petition is allowed.

Order Date :- 20.8.2018/A. Pandey