LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a civil suit challenging an order of the Agricultural Lands Tribunal is maintainable despite statutory bars and limitation periods.
CASE TYPE: Civil Law, Land Law, Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948
Case Name: Salim D. Agboatwala & Ors. vs. Shamalji Oddhavji Thakkar & Ors.
Judgment Date: 17 September 2021
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 17 September 2021
Citation: (2021) Civil Appeal No. 5641 of 2021
Judges: Hemant Gupta, J., V. Ramasubramanian, J.
Can a civil court dismiss a suit at the outset if it involves issues already decided by a land tribunal? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case concerning a long-standing land dispute. The court examined whether a suit challenging orders passed under the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, could be dismissed on grounds of limitation and lack of jurisdiction. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V. Ramasubramanian, with the opinion authored by Justice V. Ramasubramanian.
Case Background
The case revolves around a civil suit filed by 13 individuals claiming to be the legal heirs of Haji Ali Mohammed Hajee Kassam Agboatwala. They sought to challenge an order passed by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal (ALT) in 1963, which declared Defendant No. 1 as the ‘deemed purchaser’ of the suit land. The plaintiffs also contested the sale certificate issued under Section 32M of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (the Act). The plaintiffs claimed that these actions occurred without their knowledge and were the result of collusion between the Court Receiver and the Revenue authorities.
The plaintiffs’ predecessor died in 1946, leading to a suit for the administration of his estate in 1947, where a Receiver was appointed by the High Court of Bombay. The plaintiffs alleged that the sales through the ALT and subsequent mutations in revenue records were done without their knowledge. They stated that they discovered these actions only after inspecting records with the Court Receiver. Consequently, they filed a suit in 1987, seeking to set aside the 1963 ALT order and the sale certificate.
The defendants, including a Cooperative Society, sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, citing limitation and the bar of jurisdiction under Section 85 of the Act. The trial court and the High Court of Judicature at Bombay upheld the rejection, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1946 | Death of Haji Ali Mohammed Hajee Kassam Agboatwala, the predecessor of the plaintiffs. |
| 1947 | Suit filed for administration of the estate of Haji Ali Mohammed Hajee Kassam Agboatwala; Court Receiver appointed by the High Court of Bombay. |
| 30 June 1950 | High Court appointed a Receiver who took over possession and management of the properties. |
| 23 July 1954 | Sale certificate issued under Section 32M of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. |
| 28 November 1963 | Order passed by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal (ALT) declaring Defendant No. 1 as ‘deemed purchaser’ under Section 32G of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. |
| March 1987 | Plaintiffs filed S.C. Suit No. 2343 of 1987 in the City Civil Court at Bombay, challenging the ALT order and sale certificate. |
| 2003 | Second defendant filed a notice of motion for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. |
| 16 April 2012 | City Civil Court, Bombay, allowed the notice of motion and rejected the plaint. |
| 26 February 2014 | High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed the appeal against the rejection of the plaint. |
| 7 September 2021 | Leave was granted by the Supreme Court. |
| 17 September 2021 | Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the Trial Court and High Court. |
Course of Proceedings
The City Civil Court at Bombay rejected the plaint on two primary grounds: (a) that the suit was barred by limitation, as it challenged actions taken in 1963 and 1964, and (b) that Section 85 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay upheld this decision in a first appeal, confirming the rejection of the plaint. The High Court agreed with the trial court that the suit was filed after a significant delay, and the Civil Court’s jurisdiction was barred by the Act.
Legal Framework
The core legal provisions at play in this case are primarily from the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. These include:
- Section 32G: This provision deals with the determination of the purchase price of land by a tenant, and the declaration of a tenant as a deemed purchaser. The plaintiffs challenged the order passed under this section.
- Section 32M: This section pertains to the issuance of a certificate of purchase to a tenant who is declared a deemed purchaser. The plaintiffs challenged the certificate issued under this section.
- Section 85: This section bars the jurisdiction of civil courts to settle, decide, or deal with any question that the Act requires to be settled by the Mamlatdar or Tribunal. It also states that no order of the Mamlatdar, the Tribunal, the Collector or the State Government made under the Act shall be questioned in any Civil or Criminal Court.
- Section 85A: This section provides that if a suit involves issues required to be decided under the Act, the Civil Court shall stay the suit and refer such issues to the competent authority for determination.
- Section 88B(1)(d): This provision states that most provisions of the Act do not apply to lands taken under management by Civil, Revenue, or Criminal Courts through receivers, until the decision of the rightful owners’ title.
The interplay of these sections determines whether a civil court can entertain a suit challenging orders passed under the Act. Section 85 generally bars civil court jurisdiction, while Section 85A provides a mechanism for referring issues to the competent authority under the Act.
Arguments
Appellants’ Arguments:
- The appellants argued that the proceedings before the ALT were collusive, fraudulent, and null and void. They claimed they had no knowledge of these proceedings until they inspected the records with the Court Receiver.
- They contended that the issue of limitation should not apply to them because they only gained knowledge of the proceedings recently. They questioned the authority of the Court Receiver to represent them in the tenancy proceedings.
- The appellants further argued that since the estate was under the administration of the Court Receiver, the provisions of the Act, except a few, did not apply to the land, as per Section 88B(1)(d) of the Act.
Respondents’ Arguments:
- The respondents argued that the suit was barred by limitation, as the actions being challenged occurred in 1963 and 1964, and the suit was filed in 1987.
- They contended that the plaintiffs had constructive notice of the proceedings under Section 32G and the sale certificate issued under Section 32M.
- The respondents also argued that Section 85 of the Act bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts. They argued that the plaintiffs should have availed the alternative remedy of appeal under Section 74 of the Act, and the Collector has suo motu power of revision under Section 76A.
- They relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Vithoba Rama Randive vs. Dhairyasinhrao Bhayasaheb Ghatge and Ors. to argue that the plaintiffs cannot resurrect their right to avail statutory remedies by filing a suit after a long delay.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (Appellants) | Sub-Submissions (Respondents) |
|---|---|---|
| Validity of ALT Order and Sale Certificate |
|
|
| Applicability of the Act |
|
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following issues:
- Whether the suit was barred by limitation.
- Whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred under Section 85 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
- Whether the plaint could be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
- Whether Section 88B(1)(d) of the Act applies to the facts of the case, and if so, whether it ousts the bar under Section 85.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the suit was barred by limitation. | No | Limitation is a mixed question of fact and law. If the plaintiffs prove they had no knowledge of the proceedings, limitation cannot apply. The court cannot reject the plaint at the threshold. |
| Whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred under Section 85 of the Act. | No | Section 85A provides a mechanism for referring issues to the competent authority. The bar under Section 85 is not absolute. The Civil Court was obliged to see whether the appointment of a Receiver for the administration of the Estate of a deceased person would actually fall within the mandate of Clause(d) of Sub-section(1) of Section 88B. |
| Whether the plaint could be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. | No | Rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 is a drastic power. The conditions precedent to the exercise of the power are stringent. The plea regarding the date on which the plaintiffs gained knowledge of the essential facts is crucial for deciding the question whether the suit is barred by limitation or not. |
| Whether Section 88B(1)(d) of the Act applies to the facts of the case, and if so, whether it ousts the bar under Section 85. | Not decided at this stage | This is a legal issue that goes to the root of the matter and has not been tested by the Trial Court or the High Court. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | Legal Point | How Considered |
|---|---|---|---|
| P.V. Guru Raj Reddy vs. P. Neeradha Reddy And Others [ (2015) 8 SCC 331] | Supreme Court of India | Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 | Followed; The court reiterated that rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 is a drastic power and the conditions precedent to the exercise of the power are stringent. |
| Chhotanben vs. Kiritbhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar [ (2018) 6 SCC 422] | Supreme Court of India | Plea regarding knowledge of essential facts | Followed; The court reiterated that the plea regarding the date on which the plaintiffs gained knowledge of the essential facts, is crucial for deciding the question whether the suit is barred by limitation or not. |
| Ram Niwas (Dead) vs. Bano (Smt.) & Ors. [ (2000) 6 SCC 685] | Supreme Court of India | Constructive notice under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. | Distinguished; The court held that the decision revolved around Explanation II under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and cannot go to the rescue of the respondents in this case. |
| Rajasthan Housing Board vs. New Pink City Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited & Anr. [ (2015) 7 SCC 601] | Supreme Court of India | Constructive notice under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. | Distinguished; The court held that the decision reiterates the two ingredients of Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and hence the same cannot be raised in an application under Order VII Rule 11. |
| Murlidhar Bapuji Valve vs. Yallappa Lalu Chaugule [ (1994) SCC Online Bom 72] | High Court of Bombay | Constructive notice | Not Specifically Discussed; The court did not specifically discuss this case in detail. |
| Parvathathammal vs. Sivasankara Bhattar And Others [ 1951 SCC Online Mad 23] | High Court of Madras | Constructive notice | Not Specifically Discussed; The court did not specifically discuss this case in detail. |
| Vithoba Rama Randive vs. Dhairyasinhrao Bhayasaheb Ghatge and Ors. [AIR 1972 Bombay 122] | High Court of Bombay | Alternative remedy under the Act | Distinguished; The court held that this contention overlooks the important facet of the case set up by the plaintiffs, which is collusion and fraud, and these cannot be determined by the appellate or revisional authority. |
| Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 | Statute | Definition of notice | Explained; The court explained the concept of notice as defined in Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and held that the ingredients of Section 3 are matters of fact to be established through evidence. |
| Section 32G of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 | Statute | Determination of purchase price of land by a tenant | Explained; The court explained that this provision deals with the determination of the purchase price of land by a tenant, and the declaration of a tenant as a deemed purchaser. |
| Section 32M of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 | Statute | Issuance of certificate of purchase | Explained; The court explained that this section pertains to the issuance of a certificate of purchase to a tenant who is declared a deemed purchaser. |
| Section 85 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 | Statute | Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts | Explained; The court explained that this section bars the jurisdiction of civil courts to settle, decide, or deal with any question that the Act requires to be settled by the Mamlatdar or Tribunal. |
| Section 85A of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 | Statute | Procedure for suits involving issues under the Act | Explained; The court explained that this section provides that if a suit involves issues required to be decided under the Act, the Civil Court shall stay the suit and refer such issues to the competent authority for determination. |
| Section 88B(1)(d) of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 | Statute | Exemption for lands under court management | Explained; The court explained that this provision states that most provisions of the Act do not apply to lands taken under management by Civil, Revenue, or Criminal Courts through receivers, until the decision of the rightful owners’ title. |
| Section 74 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 | Statute | Appellate Authority | Mentioned; The court mentioned that the Collector is the appellate authority under Section 74. |
| Section 76A of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 | Statute | Suo motu power of revision of the Collector | Mentioned; The court mentioned that Under Section 76-A, the Collector even has suo motu power of revision. |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Suit was barred by limitation. | Rejected. The court held that limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and cannot be decided at the stage of Order VII Rule 11. |
| Plaintiffs had constructive notice of the proceedings. | Rejected. The court held that the plea of constructive notice is a matter of evidence and cannot be decided at the stage of Order VII Rule 11. |
| Section 85 of the Act bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts. | Partially Rejected. The court held that Section 85A provides a mechanism for referring issues to the competent authority. The bar under Section 85 is not absolute. |
| Alternative remedy of appeal was available to the plaintiffs. | Rejected. The court held that the issue of fraud and collusion cannot be decided by the appellate or revisional authority. |
| Section 88B(1)(d) exempts land under Court Receiver management. | Not decided. The court held that this is a legal issue that goes to the root of the matter and has not been tested by the Trial Court or the High Court. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
✓ P.V. Guru Raj Reddy vs. P. Neeradha Reddy And Others [(2015) 8 SCC 331]*: Followed to emphasize the stringent conditions for rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11.
✓ Chhotanben vs. Kiritbhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar [(2018) 6 SCC 422]*: Followed to highlight the importance of the date of knowledge in determining limitation.
✓ Ram Niwas (Dead) vs. Bano (Smt.) & Ors. [(2000) 6 SCC 685]*: Distinguished, stating that it revolved around Explanation II under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and was not applicable to the present case.
✓ Rajasthan Housing Board vs. New Pink City Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited & Anr. [(2015) 7 SCC 601]*: Distinguished, stating that it reiterated the two ingredients of Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and was not applicable to an application under Order VII Rule 11.
✓ Vithoba Rama Randive vs. Dhairyasinhrao Bhayasaheb Ghatge and Ors. [AIR 1972 Bombay 122]*: Distinguished, stating that the contention overlooked the important facet of the case set up by the plaintiffs, which is collusion and fraud.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:
- The principle that limitation is a mixed question of fact and law, and the court cannot reject the plaint at the threshold if the plaintiffs claim to have gained knowledge of the essential facts only recently.
- The court’s concern that the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 is a drastic power and should not be exercised lightly, especially when the issue of limitation is contested.
- The court’s recognition that the plaintiffs’ allegations of fraud and collusion could not be determined by the appellate or revisional authority under the Act.
- The court’s interpretation of Section 85A of the Act, which provides a mechanism for referring issues to the competent authority, indicating that the bar of jurisdiction under Section 85 is not absolute.
- The court’s view that the applicability of Section 88B(1)(d) of the Act, which exempts lands under court management, was a legal issue that needed to be tested.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Limitation is a mixed question of fact and law. | 30% |
| Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 is a drastic power. | 25% |
| Allegations of fraud and collusion cannot be determined by the appellate authority. | 20% |
| Section 85A provides a mechanism for referring issues. | 15% |
| Applicability of Section 88B(1)(d) needs to be tested. | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio:
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 40% |
| Law | 60% |
The court’s reasoning was influenced by both factual aspects (such as the plaintiffs’ claim of lack of knowledge) and legal considerations (such as the interpretation of relevant sections of the Act and the Code of Civil Procedure). The legal considerations weighed slightly more in the court’s decision.
Logical Reasoning
Issue 1: Whether the suit was barred by limitation?
Issue 2: Whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred under Section 85 of the Act?
Issue 3: Whether the plaint could be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
Key Takeaways
- A civil suit cannot be dismissed at the threshold if the plaintiff claims to have gained knowledge of the essential facts giving rise to the cause of action only at a particular point of time.
- The bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts under Section 85 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, is not absolute, and Section 85A provides a mechanism for referring issues to the competent authority.
- Allegations of fraud and collusion cannot be determined by the appellate or revisional authorities under the Act and require adjudication by a civil court.
- The applicability of Section 88B(1)(d) of the Act, which exempts lands under court management, is a legal issue that needs to be tested.
- The rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is a drastic power and should be exercised with caution.
Directions
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and the High Court and restored the suit to file. The matter was remanded back to the trial court for adjudication on merits.
Specific Amendments Analysis
Not applicable in this judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a civil suit challenging an order passed under the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, cannot be rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, if the plaintiff claims to have gained knowledge of the essential facts only recently. Further, the bar of jurisdiction under Section 85 of the Act is not absolute, and the Civil Court must follow the procedure under Section 85A by referring the issues to the competent authority. This judgment clarifies the scope of Order VII Rule 11 and the interplay between Sections 85 and 85A of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the decisions of the trial court and the High Court. The Court held that the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was not justified. The court emphasized that limitation is a mixed question of fact and law, and the plea regarding the date of knowledge of essential facts is crucial. The Court also clarified that the bar of jurisdiction under Section 85 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, is not absolute, and the procedure prescribed under Section 85A must be followed. The matter was remanded back to the trial court for adjudication on merits.