Summary
Landowners in Coimbatore sued in 2015-16 to cancel registered sale deeds they had executed in September 2005, for which consideration had been paid by demand drafts. They claimed they signed believing the documents were joint development agreements and learned of the fraud only in 2015. The trial court and the High Court refused to reject the plaints, treating limitation as a mixed question. The Supreme Court rejected the plaints under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. The plaints themselves gave the execution date as the start of the cause of action. They did not say when or how the plaintiffs learned of the fraud, and they did not particularise it. Some plaintiffs had been parties to an earlier suit, filed in 2006 and dismissed in 2014, that referred to the same deed. Merely using the word 'fraud' to invoke Section 17 of the Limitation Act cannot rescue a time-barred suit.
Issues
- Whether suits filed about ten years after the execution of registered sale deeds were barred by limitation on the face of the plaints, justifying rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.
- Whether vague averments of fraud and of later discovery were enough to invoke Section 17 of the Limitation Act and make limitation a triable mixed question.
Provisions considered
- Order VII Rule 11(d), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Reading the plaint as a whole and meaningfully, if the suit is barred by law, the plaint must be rejected at the threshold. Clever drafting that creates an illusion of a cause of action must be nipped in the bud (T. Arivandandam, Raghwendra Sharan Singh). (¶¶ 7.2, 7.8, 7.9, 8)
- Section 17, Limitation Act, 1963Time runs from discovery of fraud only where the fraud and the date and manner of its discovery are specifically pleaded. A bare allegation of fraud and an undated 'visit to the property' do not bring the suit within time. (¶¶ 7.7, 7.8)
Held
- The plaints themselves said the cause of action arose on the date the sale deed was executed in 2005, and most of the other events listed predated the deeds. (¶¶ 7.5, 7.6)
- The plea of knowledge was too vague. It gave no date and did not explain how visiting the property could have revealed the contents of the deeds or the alleged fraud. (¶ 7.7)
- Fraud must be specifically pleaded with particulars of how it was committed. Using the word 'fraud' to invoke Section 17 against registered deeds challenged a decade later is clever drafting that cannot avoid the bar of limitation. (¶ 7.8)
- Some plaintiffs had been parties to an earlier suit that referred to the same sale deed and was dismissed in 2014. The suits were plainly barred, and the courts below erred in not rejecting the plaints. (¶ 7.9)
Result
Appeals allowed. The orders of the trial court and the High Court were set aside, the defendant's applications under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC were allowed, and the plaints were rejected as barred by limitation. No costs.