Summary
The Supreme Court restored a suit challenging an old registered sale deed where the plaintiffs pleaded recent knowledge, forged thumb impressions and continuing rights in ancestral property. On those plaint averments, limitation was a triable issue and did not warrant threshold rejection under Order VII rule 11(d). The High Court had relied on conjecture and the defence rather than reading the plaint as a whole. The trial court was also directed to implement its thumb-impression examination order if it remained unchallenged.
Issues
- Whether the pleaded fraud and later knowledge made limitation a triable issue despite the sale deed’s age.
- What material could be considered on the application for rejection of the plaint.
- What followed for the pending thumb-impression examination direction.
Held
- For an Order VII rule 11(d) application, the plaint must be read as a whole. Defence pleas in the written statement or another application cannot determine the application. The High Court wrongly substituted conjectures about collusion and delay for examination of the plaint allegations. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)
- The plaintiffs denied the thumb impressions and alleged forgery, impersonation and later discovery of the sale. On the totality of these pleaded facts, limitation required trial. The applicable Limitation Act article and the substantive truth of the allegations were not finally decided. (¶¶ 11, 12, 16)
- The trial court’s rejection of the defendant’s application was restored and the suit reinstated for further proceedings. The earlier order for production of the deed and scientific comparison of thumb impressions was to be taken to its logical conclusion if it remained unchallenged by the defendants. (¶¶ 5, 17, 18)
Result
Appeal allowed without costs; High Court order reversed, rejection application dismissed and plaint restored. Trial court to proceed according to law and implement its examination order subject to the stated condition; limitation and merits remain triable.