Summary
The Supreme Court rejected a plaint challenging a registered gift deed approximately 22 years after its admitted execution by the plaintiff. On a meaningful reading of the plaint, describing the gift as sham and omitting a cancellation prayer were devices to evade limitation. A trial was unnecessary where the bar was apparent from the pleading itself.
Issues
- Whether the suit was liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d) on the plaint’s own averments.
- Whether framing relief as a declaration that the gift was sham avoided Article 59.
Provisions considered
- Order VII Rule 11(d), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908A limitation bar apparent on a whole and meaningful reading of the plaint permits rejection at the threshold; the written statement and defence are immaterial. (¶ 6.7–8)
- Article 59, Limitation Act, 1963The plaintiff could not evade the limitation governing a challenge to his registered gift deed by omitting cancellation relief and describing the instrument as merely showy. (¶ 7–7.1)
Held
- Rejection is a drastic power requiring satisfaction of the statutory conditions. The court reads the plaint as a whole and considers its averments, rather than the defendant’s case; clever drafting cannot manufacture a right to sue. (¶ 6.3–6.8)
- The plaintiff admitted executing the registered gift deed, left it unchallenged for about 22 years, and pleaded circumstances showing the donee’s dealings with the property. The late challenge was barred despite its formulation as a declaration of a sham transaction. (¶¶ 6.1, 7–7.1)
- Although limitation may involve mixed questions, no evidentiary trial is required when the plaint itself clearly shows the bar. (¶ 8–9)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court and trial court orders refusing rejection set aside; defendant’s application allowed and plaint in Title Suit 19 of 2003 rejected. No costs. Substitution allowed.