LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a suit challenging a registered gift deed, filed 22 years after its execution, is barred by limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963.
CASE TYPE: Civil Law – Property Dispute
Case Name: Raghwendra Sharan Singh vs. Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead) by LRs
[Judgment Date]: March 13, 2019
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: March 13, 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 184
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J. and M. R. Shah, J.
Can a civil suit be dismissed at the outset if it is filed after the prescribed limitation period? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case concerning a property dispute where a gift deed was challenged after 22 years of its execution. The court examined whether the suit was barred by the law of limitation, specifically under the Limitation Act, 1963. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and M. R. Shah, overturned the decisions of the lower courts, holding that the suit was indeed time-barred.
Case Background
In 1965, Ram Prasanna Singh (the original plaintiff) and his brother, Sheo Prasanna Singh, jointly purchased a piece of land. On March 6, 1981, they executed a registered gift deed, transferring the suit land to Raghwendra Sharan Singh (the original defendant and the appellant), who is the son of Ram Prasanna Singh. Raghwendra Sharan Singh was given possession of the property. In 2001, Raghwendra Sharan Singh filed a partition suit against his brothers, including his father, Ram Prasanna Singh, who was named as defendant No. 10 in that suit. Ram Prasanna Singh was served a summons along with a copy of the plaint in the partition suit on December 21, 2001. Sheo Prasanna Singh passed away on December 15, 2002. Subsequently, in 2003, Ram Prasanna Singh filed a suit against Raghwendra Sharan Singh, seeking a declaration that the gift deed of March 6, 1981, was a sham transaction and did not transfer any title or possession to Raghwendra Sharan Singh. He also sought confirmation of his possession of the property or, alternatively, recovery of possession.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1965 | Ram Prasanna Singh and Sheo Prasanna Singh jointly purchased the suit land. |
| March 6, 1981 | Ram Prasanna Singh and Sheo Prasanna Singh executed a registered gift deed in favor of Raghwendra Sharan Singh, gifting the suit land. |
| 2001 | Raghwendra Sharan Singh filed a partition suit (T.S. No. 203 of 2001) against his brothers, including Ram Prasanna Singh (defendant No. 10). |
| December 21, 2001 | Summons and copy of the plaint of the partition suit were allegedly served on Ram Prasanna Singh. |
| December 15, 2002 | Sheo Prasanna Singh passed away. |
| 2003 | Ram Prasanna Singh filed a suit (T.S. No. 19 of 2003) against Raghwendra Sharan Singh, challenging the gift deed. |
| August 28, 2006 | Munsif, Danapur rejected the application of Raghwendra Sharan Singh under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. |
| March 12, 2013 | High Court of Judicature at Patna dismissed the revision petition of Raghwendra Sharan Singh. |
| March 13, 2019 | Supreme Court of India allowed the appeal of Raghwendra Sharan Singh. |
Course of Proceedings
The Munsif, Danapur, rejected Raghwendra Sharan Singh’s application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), stating that oral evidence was required to determine the question of limitation. The High Court of Judicature at Patna upheld this decision, dismissing Raghwendra Sharan Singh’s revision petition. The High Court agreed with the trial court that the issue of limitation required evidence to be led by both the parties.
Legal Framework
The case primarily revolves around the application of Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC, which allows for the rejection of a plaint if the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. The relevant provision of the Limitation Act, 1963 is Article 59, which prescribes a limitation period of three years for suits to set aside an instrument.
Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC states:
“The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases: (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.”
Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 states:
“To cancel or set aside an instrument or decree or for the rescission of a contract. Three years. When the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument or decree cancelled or set aside or the contract rescinded first become known to him.”
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments (Raghwendra Sharan Singh):
- The suit was clearly barred by limitation as the gift deed was executed in 1981, and the suit was filed in 2003, well beyond the three-year limitation period prescribed under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
- The plaintiff deliberately avoided seeking a specific prayer to set aside the gift deed to circumvent the limitation period. The suit was a clever drafting attempt to bring the suit within the limitation period.
- The courts should reject vexatious and meritless suits at the outset, as highlighted in T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC 467.
- Only the averments in the plaint should be considered while deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC.
- The suit was not maintainable in view of Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act as well as Section 47 of the Registration Act.
Respondent’s Arguments (Ram Prasanna Singh):
- The question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, requiring evidence to be led by both parties.
- The plaintiff only came to know about the gift deed in 2001 when the defendant asserted his rights based on the gift deed in a partition suit.
- The averments in the plaint should be considered, and the suit was not barred by limitation based on the facts stated in the plaint.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (Appellant) | Sub-Submissions (Respondent) |
|---|---|---|
| Limitation |
✓ The gift deed was executed in 1981, and the suit was filed in 2003, exceeding the 3-year limitation period. ✓ The suit is barred by Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963. |
✓ The question of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts. ✓ The plaintiff came to know about the gift deed in 2001. |
| Maintainability of Suit |
✓ The plaintiff deliberately avoided seeking a prayer to set aside the gift deed to circumvent the limitation period. ✓ The suit is not maintainable in view of Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act as well as Section 47 of the Registration Act. |
✓ The averments in the plaint should be considered. |
| Rejection of Plaint |
✓ The court should reject vexatious and meritless suits at the outset, as per T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC 467. ✓ Only the averments in the plaint should be considered while deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. |
✓ The issue of limitation requires evidence to be led by both parties. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the court was:
✓ Whether the suit was barred by the law of limitation under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the suit was barred by the law of limitation under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC | The Court held that the suit was indeed barred by limitation. The Court found that the plaintiff was aware of the gift deed, and the suit was filed after the expiry of the limitation period. The court held that the plaint should be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following cases and legal provisions:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC 467 | Supreme Court of India | The Court relied on this case to emphasize that courts should reject vexatious and meritless suits at the outset. |
| Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society v. Ponniamman Educational Trust (2012) 8 SCC 706 | Supreme Court of India | The Court referred to this case to explain that the plaint should contain the material facts which constitute a cause of action. |
| A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies (1989) 2 SCC 163 | Supreme Court of India | The Court cited this case to define the meaning of “cause of action” and to state that it is a bundle of facts that gives the plaintiff a right to relief. |
| Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Assistant Charity Commissioner (2004) 3 SCC 137 | Supreme Court of India | The Court used this case to reiterate that if a plaint is vexatious and meritless, it should be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. |
| Sham Lal alias Kuldip v. Sanjeev Kumar (2009) 12 SCC 454 | Supreme Court of India | The Court referred to this case to state that a suit can be rejected if it is barred by limitation based on the averments in the plaint. |
| N. V. Srinivas Murthy v Mariyamma (dead) by proposed LRs AIR 2005 SC 2897 | Supreme Court of India | The Court used this case to state that a suit can be rejected if it is barred by limitation based on the averments in the plaint. |
| Ram Prakash Gupta v. Rajiv Kumar Gupta (2007) 10 SCC 59 | Supreme Court of India | The Court relied on this case to state that a suit can be rejected if it is barred by limitation based on the averments in the plaint. |
| Ram Singh v. Gram Panchayat Mehal Kalan (1986) 4 SCC 364 | Supreme Court of India | The Court used this case to state that a plaintiff cannot circumvent the law of limitation by clever drafting. |
| Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal (2017) 13 SCC 174 | Supreme Court of India | The Court referred to this case to state that if a suit is barred by law or does not disclose a cause of action, the plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. |
| Order 7 Rule 11(d), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 | Statute | The Court used this provision to reject the plaint as the suit was barred by law. |
| Article 59, Limitation Act, 1963 | Statute | The Court used this provision to determine the limitation period for setting aside an instrument. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of the High Court and the trial court. The Court held that the suit was barred by limitation and the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC.
| Submission by Parties | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963. | The Court accepted this submission, holding that the suit was filed 22 years after the execution of the gift deed, well beyond the prescribed three-year limitation period. |
| Appellant’s submission that the plaintiff deliberately avoided seeking a specific prayer to set aside the gift deed to circumvent the limitation period. | The Court agreed with this submission, noting that the plaintiff cleverly drafted the suit to avoid the limitation period. |
| Appellant’s submission that the courts should reject vexatious and meritless suits at the outset, as highlighted in T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC 467. | The Court relied on this principle, emphasizing that the suit was a clear abuse of the legal process. |
| Respondent’s submission that the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, requiring evidence. | The Court rejected this argument, holding that the averments in the plaint clearly indicated that the suit was barred by limitation. |
| Respondent’s submission that the plaintiff only came to know about the gift deed in 2001. | The Court did not accept this submission, noting that the plaintiff was aware of the gift deed and its execution. |
The Court stated that the suit was clearly barred by limitation and the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. The Court emphasized that the plaintiff had not sought a declaration to set aside the gift deed, which was a clever attempt to avoid the limitation period.
The Court observed:
“…by clever drafting the plaintiff has tried to bring the suit within the period of limitation which, otherwise, is barred by law of limitation.”
The Court further noted:
“At this stage, it is required to be noted that, as such, the plaintiff has never prayed for any declaration to set aside the gift deed. We are of the opinion that such a prayer is not asked cleverly. If such a prayer would have been asked, in that case, the suit can be said to be clearly barred by limitation considering Article 59 of the Limitation Act…”
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the clear bar of limitation evident from the plaint itself. The Court focused on the fact that the gift deed was executed in 1981, and the suit was filed in 2003, well beyond the three-year limitation period as per Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Court also noted the plaintiff’s deliberate attempt to circumvent the law of limitation by not specifically seeking to set aside the gift deed. The Court emphasized the need to reject vexatious and meritless suits at the threshold to prevent abuse of the legal process.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Clear Bar of Limitation | 40% |
| Clever Drafting to Circumvent Limitation | 30% |
| Need to Reject Vexatious Suits | 30% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court’s reasoning was heavily based on the legal principle of limitation and the application of Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC. While the facts of the case were considered, the legal aspects of limitation and the interpretation of the relevant provisions were the primary drivers of the decision.
Logical Reasoning
Key Takeaways
- A suit challenging a registered gift deed must be filed within three years from when the cause of action arises, as per Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
- Courts have the power to reject a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC if the suit is barred by any law, including the law of limitation.
- Plaintiffs cannot circumvent the law of limitation by clever drafting or by avoiding specific prayers that would reveal the suit is time-barred.
- Vexatious and meritless suits should be rejected at the threshold to prevent abuse of the legal process.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the plaint in Title Suit No. 19 of 2003 be rejected.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a suit challenging a registered gift deed filed beyond the limitation period, as prescribed under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is barred by law and liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC. This decision reinforces the principle that plaintiffs cannot circumvent the law of limitation through clever drafting and that courts must reject such suits at the outset. The Supreme Court reiterated the principle laid down in T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC 467, emphasizing the need for courts to be proactive in dismissing frivolous and vexatious litigation. There is no change in the previous position of law, but this case emphasizes the strict application of limitation laws and the need to prevent abuse of the legal process.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Raghwendra Sharan Singh vs. Ram Prasanna Singh underscores the importance of adhering to the prescribed limitation periods for filing suits. The Court’s ruling reinforces the principle that clever drafting cannot be used to circumvent the law of limitation and that courts must be vigilant in rejecting suits that are clearly barred by law. This judgment serves as a reminder of the need for timely legal action and the consequences of delaying the pursuit of legal remedies.