Supreme Court Dismisses Suit for Clever Drafting: Ramisetty Venkatanna vs Nasyam Jamal Saheb (2023) INSC 458

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 28 April 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 458

Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and C.T. Ravikumar, J.

Can a lawsuit be thrown out if it cleverly avoids mentioning facts that would make it time-barred? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, emphasizing that courts must look beyond the surface of a plaint to prevent abuse of the legal process. This case highlights the importance of honesty and transparency in legal proceedings.

The core issue revolves around a property dispute where the plaintiffs attempted to bypass the law of limitation by not directly challenging a 1953 partition deed, despite their claims being rooted in its alleged errors. The Supreme Court found this to be a case of “clever drafting” and dismissed the suit.

The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar. Justice M.R. Shah authored the judgment.

Case Background

The dispute involves land originally owned by Nasyam Jamal Saheb, who had 4 acres 16 cents of land in Survey No. 700/A7B and Survey No. 706/A9 in Andhra Pradesh. After his death, his five children partitioned the property on 11 March 1953. Nasyam Ibrahim Saheb received 1 acre, and Sarambee received 1 acre 16 cents.

Sarambee later gifted 58 cents of her land to her daughter Kareembee on 24 January 1968, and the remaining 58 cents to her other daughter Ashabee and her two sons. In 2003, Ashabee’s sons further partitioned their 58 cents. After Kareembee’s death, her sons also orally partitioned their land.

On 24 August 2010, two of Kareembee’s sons, Khatif Khaja Hussain and Khatif Noor Ahammed, sold 58 cents of land in Survey No. 706/A9 to Ramisetty Venkatanna and another appellant for ₹14,52,000 and ₹13,56,000 respectively. The appellants took possession and developed the land.

Subsequently, in 2011, the children of Khatis Khader Basha (another son of Kareembee) filed a suit seeking partition of their share in the property sold to the appellants. This suit was settled in Lok Adalat after the appellants paid ₹14,00,000.

In 2013, the Nandyal Municipality widened a road, affecting 3.5 cents of the appellants’ land. The appellants gifted this land to the municipality and received transferable development rights in return.

In 2014, the respondents (original plaintiffs) filed a suit seeking a declaration of their title to the suit property, claiming the 1953 partition deed contained errors. They also sought cancellation of several sale deeds, including those in favor of the appellants.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellants filed an application in the Trial Court to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule XI of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), arguing that the suit was barred by limitation and lacked a cause of action. The Trial Court dismissed this application on 11 March 2020.

The appellants then filed a revision application before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. The High Court dismissed the revision petition, affirming the Trial Court’s order. This led to the appellants filing the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Order VII Rule XI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), which allows a court to reject a plaint under certain circumstances. Specifically, the appellants invoked clauses (a) and (d) of Order VII Rule XI:

• ✓ Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC: *“where it does not disclose a cause of action”*. This means that if the plaint, on its face, does not present a valid reason for the lawsuit, it can be rejected.
• ✓ Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC: *“where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law”*. This allows for the rejection of a plaint if the suit is barred by any law, such as the law of limitation.

The Supreme Court examined whether the plaint, by cleverly avoiding a direct challenge to the 1953 partition deed, could circumvent the law of limitation. The Court also considered whether the plaint disclosed a real cause of action or was merely an attempt to create an illusion of one.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments

• ✓ The appellants argued that the suit was clearly barred by limitation under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC, as it was filed 61 years after the 1953 partition deed.
• ✓ They contended that the plaintiffs’ suit was based on the premise that the 1953 partition deed was erroneous, and therefore, Sarambee and her descendants never had the right to transact the land in Survey No. 706/A9.
• ✓ The appellants asserted that the plaintiffs cleverly drafted the plaint to avoid seeking rectification of the 1953 partition deed, which would have been time-barred.
• ✓ They argued that the plaintiffs did not have a genuine cause of action, as all the transactions were based on the rights granted under the 1953 partition deed.
• ✓ They submitted that the suit was frivolous and vexatious, attempting to re-partition and unsettle the title and possession of numerous parties.
• ✓ The appellants relied on the Supreme Court’s decisions in T. Arivandandam vs T.V. Satyapal [(1977) 4 SCC 467] and Raj Narain Sarin vs Laxmi Devi and Ors. [(2002) 10 SCC 501] to argue that the plaint should be rejected for being vexatious and meritless.

Respondents’ Arguments

• ✓ The respondents argued that the dispute was not about the 1953 partition deed itself or the boundaries of the properties, but about the wrong survey number mentioned in the deed concerning the shares of Nasyam Ibrahim, Sarambee, and Jainabee.
• ✓ They contended that the boundaries of the property are more important than the survey numbers, relying on the Privy Council’s decision in The Palestine Kupat Am Bank Co-operative Society Ltd. vs Government of Palestine and Ors. [AIR (35) 1948 Privy Council 207] and the Supreme Court’s decision in Subhaga and Ors. vs Shobha and Ors. [(2006) 5 SCC 466].
• ✓ The respondents submitted that only the averments in the plaint should be considered when deciding an application under Order VII Rule XI of the CPC, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Nusli Neville Wadia vs Ivory Properties and Ors. [(2020) 6 SCC 557].
• ✓ They argued that the Trial Court and High Court were correct in dismissing the application under Order VII Rule XI of the CPC.

Submissions Table

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 plaint should be rejected under Order VII Rule XI of the CPC. The main sub-issues were:

• ✓ Whether the suit was barred by limitation.
• ✓ Whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action, or was vexatious and meritless.
• ✓ Whether the plaintiffs had cleverly drafted the plaint to circumvent the law of limitation.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

Cases

• ✓ T. Arivandandam vs T.V. Satyapal [(1977) 4 SCC 467] – Supreme Court of India: The court relied on this case to emphasize that a plaint should be rejected if it is vexatious, meritless, and creates an illusion of a cause of action through clever drafting.
• ✓ Sopan Sukhdeo Sable vs Charity Commr., [(2004) 3 SCC 137] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to reiterate that a plaint should be rejected if it does not disclose a clear right to sue and is manifestly vexatious.
• ✓ Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy vs Syed Jalal, [(2017) 13 SCC 174] – Supreme Court of India: The court used this case to highlight that the power to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC should be exercised when the suit is barred by law or does not disclose a cause of action.
• ✓ Ram Singh vs Gram Panchayat Mehal Kalan, [(1986) 4 SCC 364] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to support the view that a plaintiff cannot circumvent the law of limitation by clever drafting.
• ✓ Raj Narain Sarin vs Laxmi Devi and Ors. [(2002) 10 SCC 501] – Supreme Court of India: The court relied on this case to emphasize that a suit barred by limitation should not be allowed to proceed through clever drafting.
• ✓ The Palestine Kupat Am Bank Co-operative Society Ltd. vs Government of Palestine and Ors. [AIR (35) 1948 Privy Council 207] – Privy Council: This case was cited by the respondents to argue that boundaries should prevail over survey numbers.
• ✓ Subhaga and Ors. vs Shobha and Ors. [(2006) 5 SCC 466] – Supreme Court of India: This case was also cited by the respondents to support the argument that boundaries are more important than survey numbers.
• ✓ Nusli Neville Wadia vs Ivory Properties and Ors. [(2020) 6 SCC 557] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited by the respondents to argue that only the averments in the plaint should be considered when deciding an application under Order VII Rule XI of CPC.

Authority Consideration Table

Judgment

Treatment of Submissions

Treatment of Authorities

The Court relied heavily on its previous judgments to support its decision:

• ✓ T. Arivandandam vs T.V. Satyapal [(1977) 4 SCC 467]*: The Court followed this case, emphasizing that a plaint should be rejected if it is vexatious and meritless due to clever drafting.
• ✓ Sopan Sukhdeo Sable vs Charity Commr., [(2004) 3 SCC 137]*: The Court followed this case to reiterate that a plaint should be rejected if it does not disclose a clear right to sue.
• ✓ Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy vs Syed Jalal, [(2017) 13 SCC 174]*: The Court followed this case to highlight that the power to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC should be exercised when the suit is barred by law.
• ✓ Ram Singh vs Gram Panchayat Mehal Kalan, [(1986) 4 SCC 364]*: The Court followed this case, noting that a plaintiff cannot circumvent the law of limitation by clever drafting.
• ✓ Raj Narain Sarin vs Laxmi Devi and Ors. [(2002) 10 SCC 501]*: The Court followed this case to support the rejection of a suit barred by limitation.
• ✓ The Palestine Kupat Am Bank Co-operative Society Ltd. vs Government of Palestine and Ors. [AIR (35) 1948 Privy Council 207]*: The Court distinguished this case, stating that while boundaries are important, the primary issue here was the limitation.
• ✓ Subhaga and Ors. vs Shobha and Ors. [(2006) 5 SCC 466]*: The Court distinguished this case for the same reason as above, that the primary issue was the limitation.
• ✓ Nusli Neville Wadia vs Ivory Properties and Ors. [(2020) 6 SCC 557]*: The Court distinguished this case, stating that while only the plaint is considered, the plaint itself showed the suit was barred by limitation and lacked a cause of action.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the plaintiffs had attempted to circumvent the law of limitation by cleverly drafting the plaint. The Court emphasized that the suit was essentially a challenge to the 1953 partition deed, which was time-barred, and that the plaintiffs’ attempt to focus on survey numbers was a mere tactic to avoid the issue of limitation. The Court also stressed the need to prevent abuse of the legal process through vexatious and meritless litigation.

Sentiment Analysis Ranking

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

The Court’s logical reasoning can be summarized as follows:

The Court rejected the respondents’ arguments that the dispute was about survey numbers and not boundaries, emphasizing that the essence of the suit was to challenge the 1953 partition deed, which was time-barred. The Court also rejected the argument that only the plaint should be considered, stating that the plaint itself revealed the lack of a cause of action and the issue of limitation.

The Court’s decision was based on a thorough analysis of the plaint, the relevant legal provisions, and its own previous judgments. The Court concluded that the suit was a clear case of “clever drafting” to circumvent the law of limitation, and therefore, the plaint should be rejected.

The Court quoted from T. Arivandandam vs T.V. Satyapal [(1977) 4 SCC 467]:

“…if on a meaningful — not formal — reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 CPC.”

The Court also quoted from Sopan Sukhdeo Sable vs Charity Commr., [(2004) 3 SCC 137]:

“The trial court must remember that if on a meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, it should exercise the power under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled.”

The Court further quoted from Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy vs Syed Jalal, [(2017) 13 SCC 174]:

“If clever drafting of the plaint has created the illusion of a cause of action, the court will nip it in the bud at the earliest so that bogus litigation will end at the earlier stage.”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Courts will scrutinize the substance of a plaint, not just its form, to prevent abuse of the legal process.
• ✓ Plaintiffs cannot circumvent the law of limitation by cleverly drafting their plaints to avoid directly challenging time-barred issues.
• ✓ If a suit is essentially a challenge to a time-barred document, it will be dismissed, even if the plaintiff attempts to frame the issue differently.
• ✓ This judgment reinforces the importance of honesty and transparency in legal proceedings.
• ✓ This case highlights the power of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC in preventing frivolous and vexatious litigation.

Final Order

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the High Court and the Trial Court, and rejected the plaint filed by the respondents. The Court also ordered the respondents to pay the costs of the appellants throughout the proceedings.