Supreme Court Rejects Plaint in Property Dispute Due to Limitation: Ramisetty Venkatanna vs. Nasyam Jamal Saheb (28 April 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 28 April 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 381

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

Can a plaintiff avoid the law of limitation by cleverly drafting a plaint that does not directly challenge a time-barred document, but seeks relief that is contingent on that document being invalid? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a property dispute case. The Court held that such a suit is not maintainable and is an abuse of the process of law. This judgment clarifies the importance of adhering to limitation periods and prevents parties from circumventing legal requirements through clever drafting. The bench comprised Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, with Justice M.R. Shah authoring the judgment.

Case Background

The dispute revolves around a property originally owned by Nasyam Jamal Saheb. After his death, his five children partitioned the property through a registered partition deed dated 11 March 1953. One of the children, Sarambee, received 1 acre and 16 cents of land. Sarambee later gifted portions of her land to her daughters, Kareembee and Ashabee, in 1968. Kareembee’s sons eventually sold 58 cents of land to the appellants, Ramisetty Venkatanna and another, through registered sale deeds dated 24 August 2010. In 2013, the Nandyal Municipality acquired 3.5 cents of the appellants’ land for road widening, granting them transferable development rights. In 2014, the respondents, children of other descendants of Nasyam Jamal Saheb, filed a suit (O.S. No. 35/2014) seeking a declaration of their title to the property and cancellation of the sale deeds in favor of the appellants, claiming an error in the 1953 partition deed. The appellants filed an application to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule XI of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), arguing the suit was time-barred.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellants filed an application (I.A. No. 369/2014) in O.S. No. 35/2014 to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule XI(a) and (d) of the CPC. 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, which was also dismissed. The High Court upheld the trial court’s decision, leading the appellants to file the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily concerns Order VII Rule XI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). This provision allows a court to reject a plaint if it does not disclose a cause of action or if the suit is barred by any law. Specifically, the appellants invoked clauses (a) and (d) of Order VII Rule XI, which state:

• (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
• (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;

The Supreme Court considered whether the plaintiffs’ suit, which indirectly challenged the 1953 partition deed, was barred by the law of limitation despite not explicitly seeking its cancellation. The Court also examined whether the plaint disclosed a valid cause of action.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the suit was essentially an attempt to challenge the 1953 partition deed, which was time-barred, as it was filed 61 years after the deed’s execution.
• They contended that the plaintiffs deliberately avoided seeking rectification of the partition deed to circumvent the law of limitation.
• The appellants asserted that the plaintiffs’ suit was vexatious and meritless, creating an illusion of a cause of action through clever drafting.
• They argued that the registered sale deeds and partition deed were executed in accordance with the rights granted under the 1953 partition deed.
• They 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 support their claim that the plaint should be rejected.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the dispute was not about the partition deed itself, but about a wrong survey number mentioned in it.
• They contended that the boundaries of the properties, not the survey numbers, were the key issue, 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.
• They argued that only the averments in the plaint should be considered when deciding an application under Order VII Rule XI, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Nusli Neville Wadia vs. Ivory Properties and Ors. (2020) 6 SCC 557.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaint should be rejected under Order VII Rule XI of the CPC.
2. Whether the suit was barred by limitation.
3. Whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on T. Arivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC 467* to emphasize that vexatious and meritless plaints should be rejected at the outset.
• The Court also relied on Raj Narain Sarin vs. Laxmi Devi and Ors. (2002) 10 SCC 501* to support its view that a suit barred by law cannot be circumvented by clever drafting.
• While the Court acknowledged the principle that boundaries prevail over survey numbers as stated in The Palestine Kupat Am Bank Co-operative Society Ltd. vs. Government of Palestine and Ors. AIR (35) 1948 Privy Council 207* and Subhaga and Ors. vs. Shobha and Ors. (2006) 5 SCC 466*, it found this principle irrelevant in the present case as the suit was barred by limitation.
• The Court acknowledged the principle that only the averments in the plaint should be considered as stated in Nusli Neville Wadia vs. Ivory Properties and Ors. (2020) 6 SCC 557*, but stated that even considering only the plaint’s averments, the suit was vexatious and barred by limitation.
• The Court relied on Sopan Sukhdeo Sable vs. Charity Commr., (2004) 3 SCC 137* and Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy vs. Syed Jalal, (2017) 13 SCC 174* to emphasize that if a plaint is manifestly vexatious and meritless, it should be rejected.
• The Court also relied on Ram Singh Vs. Gram Panchayat Mehal Kalan, (1986) 4 SCC 364* to support the view that a suit barred by law cannot be circumvented by clever drafting.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the plaintiffs had cleverly drafted the plaint to avoid directly challenging the 1953 partition deed, which was clearly barred by limitation. The Court emphasized that such attempts to circumvent the law should not be allowed. The Court noted that:

• The plaintiffs did not seek any relief with respect to the partition deed dated 11.03.1953, despite their case being based on an alleged error in that deed.
• The suit was filed 61 years after the partition deed, making it clearly barred by the law of limitation if the deed was directly challenged.
• The plaintiffs were attempting to re-partition the property by alleging an error in the 1953 partition deed.
• The Court found that the suit was a clear abuse of the process of law.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the legal principle that a suit barred by limitation cannot be maintained, and that clever drafting cannot circumvent this principle. The factual aspects of the case were considered to determine that the suit was indeed an attempt to challenge a time-barred partition deed.

The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the suit was about correcting a survey number error. The Court held that the plaintiffs’ suit, while not directly challenging the 1953 partition deed, was an attempt to circumvent the law of limitation. The Court emphasized that “if clever drafting 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.” The Court also stated, “By clever drafting and not asking any relief with respect to partition deed dated 11.03.1953, the plaintiffs have tried to circumvent the provision of limitation act and have tried to maintain the suit which is nothing but abuse of process of court and the law.” The Court further noted, “the suit is essentially based upon the premise that there was an error in partition deed dated 11.03.1953 and in partition deed survey number 706/A9 was wrongly mentioned.”

Key Takeaways

• Plaintiffs cannot circumvent the law of limitation by cleverly drafting a plaint that avoids directly challenging a time-barred document, but seeks relief contingent on that document’s invalidity.
• Courts have the power to reject plaints that are vexatious, meritless, or barred by law under Order VII Rule XI of the CPC.
• The principle that boundaries prevail over survey numbers does not apply when the suit is barred by limitation.
• This judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to limitation periods and prevents the abuse of the legal process.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the plaint of Civil Suit (O.S.) No. 35/2014 be rejected. The application submitted by the appellants to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule XI(a) and (d) of the CPC was allowed.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a suit which indirectly challenges a time-barred document, such as a partition deed, by cleverly avoiding a direct challenge, is not maintainable and is an abuse of the process of law. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position that the law of limitation cannot be circumvented through clever drafting. There is no change in the previous position of law, but this judgment clarifies the application of Order VII Rule XI of the CPC in cases where a suit is cleverly drafted to avoid the bar of limitation.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by Ramisetty Venkatanna and another, setting aside the orders of the High Court and the trial court. The Court held that the plaint filed by Nasyam Jamal Saheb and others was vexatious, meritless, and barred by limitation. The Court emphasized that the plaintiffs had cleverly drafted the plaint to avoid directly challenging the 1953 partition deed, which was time-barred. The Supreme Court concluded that such attempts to circumvent the law of limitation cannot be allowed, and therefore, the plaint was rejected.

Category

Parent Category: Civil Law

Child Category: Property Law

Child Category: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Child Category: Limitation Act, 1963

Parent Category: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Child Category: Order VII Rule XI, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in this case?
A: The main issue was whether a suit could be maintained when it indirectly challenged a partition deed that was time-barred under the law of limitation.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?
A: The Supreme Court decided that the suit was not maintainable because it was an attempt to circumvent the law of limitation through clever drafting and was an abuse of the process of law.

Q: What is Order VII Rule XI of the CPC?
A: Order VII Rule XI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 allows a court to reject a plaint if it does not disclose a cause of action or if the suit is barred by any law.

Q: What is the significance of the law of limitation?
A: The law of limitation sets a time limit for filing a suit. If a suit is filed after the limitation period, it is generally barred and cannot be maintained.

Q: Can a plaintiff avoid the law of limitation by cleverly drafting a plaint?
A: No, the Supreme Court has made it clear that a plaintiff cannot avoid the law of limitation by cleverly drafting a plaint that indirectly challenges a time-barred document.

Q: What does this judgment mean for property disputes?
A: This judgment means that parties involved in property disputes must adhere to the law of limitation. They cannot circumvent this by drafting a suit that indirectly challenges a time-barred document. It also emphasizes that the courts will not entertain vexatious and meritless suits.