Summary
Grandchildren of one of four brothers sued in 2023 for partition of property that revenue records showed had been orally partitioned among the brothers in 1968, and parts of which family members had sold by registered sale deeds in 1978. The trial court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as barred by limitation and disclosing no cause of action; the High Court remanded, finding triable issues. The Supreme Court restored the trial court's order, holding that registration of the 1978 sale deeds gave constructive notice to the plaintiffs' predecessors, that the plaint did not plead when the plaintiffs learnt of the sale deeds, and that a suit filed after 55 years, which on a meaningful reading of the plaint was hopelessly barred, could be nipped in the bud under Order VII Rule 11.
Issues
- Whether a suit for partition filed in 2023, in respect of property partitioned in 1968 and partly sold by registered sale deeds in 1978, was barred by limitation on the face of the plaint so as to warrant rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
- Whether the plaintiffs could rely on limitation running from the date of their knowledge of the sale deeds without pleading when they acquired that knowledge.
- Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the rejection of the plaint and remanding the suit for trial on the ground that triable issues existed.
Provisions considered
- Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Applying Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy, Dahiben and Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust, the Court reiterated that only the averments of the plaint are looked at, that the power to terminate a suit at the threshold is drastic and its conditions must be strictly met, but that where a meaningful reading of the plaint, dissecting clever drafting that creates an illusion of a cause of action, shows the suit to be hopelessly barred by limitation or without a cause of action, the plaint must be rejected so that sham litigation ends early. Though limitation is generally a mixed question of law and fact, it can be decided at this stage when the bar is apparent from the plaint. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17)
- Order XLI Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The plaintiffs' appeal to the High Court against the rejection of their plaint was filed under this provision; the High Court's order allowing it and remanding the suit was set aside. (¶¶ 4, 17, 18)
Held
- Revenue records showing mutation in the names of the four sons of the original owner, with the 1968 family partition recorded as the reason, established that the oral partition had been acted upon; registered sale deeds executed by family members as far back as 1978 on the strength of that settlement showed that the plaintiffs' side had knowledge of the transactions. (¶¶ 8, 12)
- A plaintiff who claims that limitation runs from the date of knowledge of registered sale deeds must plead when that knowledge was acquired; the plaint here was silent on that crucial question and suggested suppression of essential facts. (¶ 11)
- Registration of a document gives notice to the world of its execution and provides a complete account of the transaction to anyone interested in the property. The plaintiffs' predecessors were therefore deemed to have notice of the 1978 registered sale deeds flowing from the 1968 partition; since neither the sale deeds nor partition was challenged during the lifetime of the plaintiffs' mother, the 2023 suit was prima facie barred by law and the plaintiffs could not revive rights after sleeping on them for decades. (¶¶ 12, 13)
- Where a meaningful reading of the plaint shows that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation or discloses no cause of action, the plaint must be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 and the plaintiff cannot be allowed to protract sham litigation; the trial court rightly rejected the plaint as meaningless litigation and there was no justification for the High Court to remand the suit for trial. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17, 18)
Result
Both appeals allowed; the Karnataka High Court's order dated 08.01.2025 remanding the partition suit set aside and the trial court's order allowing the defendants' application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC restored, the suit being barred by limitation. Pending applications disposed of.