C.S. RAMASWAMY versus V. K. SENTHIL & ORS on 30 September 2022

C.S. RAMASWAMY

v.

V. K. SENTHIL & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 500 of 2022)

SEPTEMBER 30, 2022

[M.R. SHAH AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.VII r.11(d) – Rejection ofplaint – Limitation Act, 1963 – s.17 – Respondents filed respectivesuits in the year 2015/2016 for cancellation of the sale deedsexecuted in 2005, alleging that the same were obtained by fraud –Appellant filed applications u/Or.VII r.11(d) for rejection of theplaints mainly on the ground that the suits were barred by limitation,dismissed – Revision petitions filed by appellant, dismissed by HighCourt – Held: Respective suits were filed after a period of 10 yearsfrom the date of execution of the registered sale deeds – Nothingwas mentioned on which date and how the plaintiffs had theknowledge that the document was obtained by fraud and/ormisrepresentation – There were no further averments and allegationsof how the fraud was committed/played – Mere stating in the plaintthat a fraud has been played is not enough – Allegations of fraudmust be specifically averred in the plaint, otherwise merely by usingthe word “fraud”, by clever drafting the plaintiffs would try to getthe suits within the limitation, which otherwise may be barred bylimitation, as in the present case – Impugned judgment passed bythe High Court and the orders passed by the Trial Court set aside –Respective suits are rejected being barred by limitation – Fraud.

Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1 Therefore, even considering the averments andallegations in the plaints only, it can be seen that even accordingto the plaintiffs, the cause of action for the suit arose on19.09.2005, the date on which the plaintiffs executed the saledeed in favour of the defendant. Most of the cause of actionsalleged are much prior to /prior to the execution of the registeredSale Deeds. Even the averments and allegations with respect toknowledge of the plaintiffs averred in paragraph 19 can be said

A

B

C

DEF

G

H

Ato be too vague. Nothing has been mentioned on which date andhow the plaintiffs had the knowledge that the document wasobtained by fraud and/or misrepresentation. It is averred thatthe alleged fraudulent sale came to the knowledge of the plaintiffsonly when the plaintiffs visited the suit property. Nothing hasbeen mentioned when the plaintiffs visited the suit property. It isBnot understandable how on visiting the suit property, the plaintiffscould have known the contents of the sale deed and/or theknowledge about the alleged fraudulent sale. Even the avermentsand allegations in the plaint with respect to fraud are not supportedby any further averments and allegations how the fraud has beenCcommitted/played. Mere stating in the plaint that a fraud has beenplayed is not enough and the allegations of fraud must bespecifically averred in the plaint, otherwise merely by using theword “fraud”, the plaintiffs would try to get the suits within thelimitation, which otherwise may be barred by limitation.Therefore, even if the submission on behalf of the respondents –Doriginal plaintiffs that only the averments and allegations in theplaints are required to be considered at the time of deciding theapplication under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is accepted, in thatcase also by such vague allegations with respect to the date ofknowledge, the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to challenge theEdocuments after a period of 10 years. By such a clever draftingand using the word “fraud”, the plaintiffs have tried to bring thesuits within the period of limitation invoking Section 17 of thelimitation Act. The plaintiffs cannot be permitted to bring thesuits within the period of limitation by clever drafting, whichotherwise is barred by limitation. [Paras 7.5-7.8][231-E-F;F232-B-H]

Raghwendra Sharan Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singh(Dead) by Legal Representatives (2020) 16 SCC601:[2019] 4 SCR 1069 – relied on.

G1.2 Both the Courts below have materially erred in notrejecting the plaints in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule11(d) CPC. The respective suits have been filed after a period of10 years from the date of execution of the registered sale deeds.It is to be noted that one suit was filed by the minor, which was H

filed in the year 2006, in which some of the plaintiffs herein werealso party to the said suit and in the said suit, there was a specificreference to the Sale Deed dated 19.09.2005 and the said suitcame to be dismissed in the year 2014 and immediately thereafterthe present suits have been filed. Thus, from the averments inthe plaint and the bundle of facts stated in the plaint, by cleverdrafting, the plaintiffs have tried to bring the suits within the periodof limitation, which otherwise are barred by limitation. Therefore,considering the decisions of this Court in the case of T.Arivandandam and other decision of Raghwendra Sharan Singhand as the respective suits are barred by the law of limitation,the respective plaints are required to be rejected in exercise ofpowers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. In view of the above andfor the reasons stated above, all these appeals succeed. Theimpugned common judgment and order passed by the High Courtrejecting the revision applications and the orders passed by thelearned Trial Court rejecting the respective applications underOrder VII Rule 11 CPC and refusing to reject the plaints inexercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC are herebyquashed and set aside. The respective applications filed by theappellant herein – original defendant to reject the respectiveplaints on the ground that the same are barred by the law oflimitation are hereby allowed. The respective plaints are herebyrejected on the ground that the same are barred by limitation.[Paras 7.9, 8]

T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC 467 :1978 (1) SCR 742 – relied on.

Sopan Sukhdeo Sable & Ors. v. Assistant CharityCommissioner & Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 137:[2004] 1 SCR1004; Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant VithalKamat & Ors. (2021) 9 SCC 99; Ram Prakash Guptav. Rajiv Kumar Gupta & Ors. (2007) 10 SCC 59:[2007]10 SCR 520; Church of Christ Charitable Trust andEducational Charitable Society v. PonniammanEducational Trust (2012) 8 SCC 706:[2012] 6SCR 404; Salim D. Agboatwala & Ors. v. ShamaljiOddhavji Thakkar & Ors. 2021 SCC Online SC 735– referred to.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

Case Law Reference

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 500 of2022.CFrom the Judgment and Order dated 28.02.2020 of the High Courtof Judicature at Madras in C.R.P. No.1931 of 2019.

With

Civil Appeal Nos. 504, 505, 506, 502, 501 and 503 of 2022.

DKapil Sibal, A. Mariarputham, R. Balasubramanian, Sr. Advs., C.Thirumaran, Avneesh Arputham, Ms. Anuradha Arputham, Dr. RamSankar, R. N. Amarnath, Adit Subramanian Pujari, Praveen Kr. Singh,Ankit Sharma, M/s Arputham Aruna and Co., Advs. for the Appellant.Sushil Kumar Jain, Sr. Adv., S. Sinnaraj, Ms. E. R. Sumathy, A.EParthasarathi, Ms. Pooja Shree S., Ms. Murugesan M., Ms. Shruti, Advs.for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned commonFjudgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras inrespective C.R.P. Nos. 1931, 1921, 1973, 1968, 1975, 1976 and 1922 of2019 by which the High Court has dismissed the said civil revisionpetitions and has confirmed the orders passed by the learned Trial Courtrejecting the applications filed under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of CivilGProcedure (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) to reject the respectiveplaints filed by the appellant herein – original defendant, who has preferredthe present appeals.

2. That the respondents herein – original plaintiffs have filed therespective suits before the learned Trial Court for cancellation of the H

sale deed executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the appellant – originaldefendant as null and void and also to declare that the plaintiffs are theabsolute owners of the suit schedule property and consequently restrainthe defendant from in any manner alienating the suit schedule property.

2.1 Having been served with summons of the suit, the originaldefendant – appellant herein filed applications before the learned TrialCourt to reject the respective plaints in exercise of powers under OrderVII Rule 11(d) of the CPC mainly on the ground that the respective suitswere clearly barred by the law of limitation. The said applications wereresisted by the plaintiffs by submitting that the Sale Deeds dated12.09.2005, 19.09.2005, 22.09.2005, 29.09.2005 and 30.09.2005 for whichthe relief to cancel the same has been prayed in the suit was obtained byfraudulent misrepresentation and it was obtained by fraud. Accordingto the plaintiffs, by fraudulent misrepresentation of the character of thedocument, i.e., as if it is a Joint Development Project, the defendant gotthe sale deeds and the plaintiffs without knowing the contents of thedocuments have executed the said deeds. According to the plaintiffs,they came to know about the same only in April, 2015 and immediatelythereafter they had filed the present suits.

2.2 The learned Trial Court dismissed the applications under OrderVII Rule 11 CPC by observing that the issue of limitation is a mixedquestion of law and facts and therefore, the respective prayers are notrequired to be rejected at this stage in exercise of powers under OrderVII Rule 11(d) of the C.P.C.

2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the orders passed bythe learned Trial Court rejecting the applications under Order VII Rule11(d) CPC and refusing to reject the plaints, the defendant filed therevision petitions before the High court.

2.4 By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court hasdismissed the said civil revision petitions, which has given rise to thepresent appeals at the instance of the original defendant.

3. Shri Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalfof the appellant – original defendant and Shri Sushil Kumar Jain, learnedSenior Advocate has appeared on behalf of the contesting respondents– original plaintiffs.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A4. Shri Sibal, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of theappellant – original defendant has vehemently submitted that in the factsand circumstances of the case, both, the learned Trial Court as well asthe High Court have erred in not allowing the applications under OrderVII Rule 11(d) CPC and in not rejecting the respective plaints as thesame were barred by limitation. It is vehemently submitted that in theBpresent case, the sale deeds, which are now sought to be cancelledwere executed in the year 2005 and the sale consideration was paid bydemand drafts and the same were credited into the bank accounts of theplaintiffs. It is submitted that the said sale deeds are registered saledeeds. It is submitted that the suits have been filed in the year 2016, i.e.,Cafter a lapse of more than 10 years and so the said suits are clearlybarred by the law of limitation. The learned Trial Court ought to haverejected the plaints in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11(d)CPC.

4.1 It is vehemently submitted by Shri Sibal, learned SeniorDAdvocate appearing on behalf of the appellant – original defendant thateven on bare looking on the averments in the plaint and there are vagueaverments with respect to the date of knowledge of the alleged fraudand the documents and the respective suits have been filed after a periodof 10 years from the date of execution, which is a fit case to exercisethe powers under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. It is vehemently submittedEthat merely by making some vague averments with respect to fraud, theplaintiffs cannot be permitted to bring the suits within the period oflimitation. It is submitted that there must be specific allegations andaverments in the suit, how the fraud has been committed. It is submittedthat mere stating in the plaint that the registered sale deeds were executedFby playing the fraud is not sufficient to file the suits after a period of 10years.

4.2 Shri Sibal, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf ofthe appellant has vehemently submitted that in the present case, withrespect to the very sale deeds, earlier a suit was filed by the minor toGwhich some of the original plaintiffs were also parties and the said suitscame to be dismissed in the year 2014. It is submitted that immediatelythereafter the present suits were filed in the year 2015/2016. It issubmitted that therefore, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs were nothaving the knowledge of the nature of the respective sale deeds and/orthe contents of the sale deeds.H

4.3 Making above submissions and relying upon the decision ofthis Court in the case of Raghwendra Sharan Singh Vs. RamPrasanna Singh (Dead) by Legal Representatives, (2020) 16 SCC601, it is prayed to allow the present revision petitions and consequentlyallow the application submitted by the appellant – original defendant andto reject the respective plaints in exercise of the powers under OrderVII Rule 11(d) of the CPC.

5. Present appeals are vehemently opposed by Shri Sushil KumarJain, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents -original plaintiffs.

5.1 It is submitted that there is specific cause of action pleaded inthe respective plaints and there are allegations of fraud and it is the caseon behalf of the plaintiffs that the sale deeds/documents are the result offraud and sham and from the date of knowledge in the year 2015thereafter immediately the respective suits were filed, it cannot be saidthat the respective suits are barred by limitation.

5.2 It is submitted that as rightly observed and held by the TrialCourt as well as the High Court that in the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the issue with respect to limitation is a mixed question of lawand facts and therefore, such an issue of limitation is required to beconsidered at the time of trial, no error has been committed by the learnedTrial Court and/or the High Court in refusing to reject the plaints inexercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.

5.3 It is submitted that as per the settled position of law, whileconsidering and/or deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11CPC, only the averments and allegations in the plaint are required to beconsidered. Reliance is placed on the decisions of this Court in the caseof Sopan Sukhdeo Sable & Ors. Vs. Assistant CharityCommissioner & Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 137; Srihari HanumandasTotala Vs. Hemant Vithal Kamat & Ors., (2021) 9 SCC 99; andRam Prakash Gupta Vs. Rajiv Kumar Gupta & Ors., (2007) 10SCC 59.

5.4 It is submitted that as held by this Hon’ble Court in the case ofChurch of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational CharitableSociety Vs. Ponniamman Educational Trust, (2012) 8 SCC 706,the cause of action is bundle of facts where all the events are requiredto be pleaded. It is submitted that therefore on considering the necessaryaverments in the plaint disclosing the cause of action and considering A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Athe averments and allegations in the entire plaint, it cannot be said thatthe suits are barred by limitation.

5.5 It is submitted that in the plaint, it is specifically averred thatthe plaintiffs came to know about the contents of the sale deeds only inthe year 2015 and having come to know in the year 2015 that the SaleBDeeds were got executed by the defendant by fraud and misrepresentationas the plaintiffs had signed the said documents believing the same asJoint Development Agreement and therefore, it cannot be said that thesuits are clearly barred by the law of limitation.

5.6 It is submitted that the question of limitation is a mixed questionCof fact and law. It is submitted that in the present matter, the plaintiffsare required to prove during the trial that the facts so alleged in paras 11-19, if those facts are established, then the plaintiffs are entitled to benefitof Section 17 of the Limitation Act.

5.7 It is submitted that considering Section 17 of the LimitationDAct, the period of limitation shall begin to run only from the date ofdiscovery of such fraud. It is submitted that as per the averments andallegations in the plaints, the plaintiffs came to know about the fraud inthe year 2015 and therefore, considering Section 17 of the LimitationAct, the suits cannot be said to be barred by limitation. Reliance isplaced on the decision of this Court in the case of Salim D. AgboatwalaE& Ors. Vs. Shamalji Oddhavji Thakkar & Ors., 2021 SCC OnlineSC 735.

5.8 Shri Jain, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of therespondents - original plaintiffs vehemently submitted that in the presentcase, defendant himself filed the writ petition in the name of the plaintiffsFand even in the names of the dead owners, which shows that the plaintiffsnot only got the sale deeds executed in the name of Joint VentureAgreement but even got the blank documents, which were taken andused for filing the writ petitions.

5.9 Making above submissions and relying upon the aboveGdecisions, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeals.

6. Heard the learned Senior Advocates appearing on behalf ofthe respective parties at length.

7. We have gone through in detail the averments and allegationsin the plaints.H

7.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that by filing the respectivesuits, the original plaintiffs have prayed to cancel the registered SaleDeeds, which were executed by the original plaintiffs. The respectivesuits have been filed in the year 2015/2016, i.e., after a period of 10years from the date of execution of such registered sale deeds.Therefore, the defendant filed the applications and prayed to reject therespective plaints in exercise of the powers under Order VII Rule 11(d)CPC on the ground that the suits are clearly barred by the law oflimitation. On the other hand, it is the case on behalf of the plaintiffs thatas the sale deeds/documents were got executed by fraud andmisrepresentation and the plaintiffs signed the said documents believingor treating it as Joint Venture Agreement and the plaintiffs did not gothrough the contents of the said documents and as in the year 2015, theplaintiffs came to know about such fraud and obtaining the documents/sale deeds by misrepresentation, considering Section 17 of the LimitationAct, the said suits cannot be said to be barred by limitation. It is the caseon behalf of the plaintiffs that in any case, the question of limitationbeing a mixed question of law and facts, and, therefore, in the facts andcircumstances of the case, the plaints may not be rejected in exercise ofthe powers under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. It is the case on behalf ofthe plaintiffs that while considering the application under Order VII Rule11 CPC, the allegations and averments in the plaints are required to beconsidered.

7.2 While considering the issue/question whether the plaints filedby the plaintiffs are required to be rejected on the ground of limitation inexercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, the cause of actionpleaded in the plaints is required to be referred to, which reads as under:- “21.The cause of action for the suit arose on 19.09.2005 thedate on which the plaintiffs executed the sale deed infavour of the defendant registered as document No.3555/2005, on 20.09.1983 the date when Governmentof Tamil Nadu issued Sec. 4 (1) notice of LandAcquisition Act in respect of the plaintiff’s lands, on20.09.1983 the date when after Section 4(1) notificationthe Government of Tamil Nadu a declaration underSection 6 was issued in G.O. No. 1426 by the Housingand Urban Development Department, on subsequentdates when land acquisition proceedings were initiated AB

C

DE

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

by the Government of Tamil Nadu filed a writ petition inW.P. No. 4079 of 1989 against the plaintiff and otherland owners, on 07. 07 .1989 the date when the stayorder in WMP No. 5983 of 1989 was given, on07.01.1994 the date when stay order was vacated, on01.04.1998 the date when the plaintiffs filed a writ appealquestioning the said order in W.A. No. 258 of 1994, on01.04.1998 the date when High Court quashed the entireacquisition proceedings under the old land acquisitionact, on subsequent dates when the housing board hasfiled SLP (C) No. 13458 to 13462 of 1998 which wassubsequently withdrawn with liberty to approach theHonorable High Court of Madras by filing the reviewpetition, on subsequent date when the housing boardfiled a review petition before the High Court in ReviewNo. 68 of 1999 seeking to review the order dated01.04.1998 passed in WA No. 258 of 1994 and W.P.No. 4079 of 1989, on 04.10.2007 the date when thereview petition was allowed thereby setting aside theorder dated 01.04.1998, on 05.01.2009 the date whenthe M.P. 1 of 2008 was dismissed by the High CourtDivision Bench, on 09.07.2012 the date when thepetitioners in writ petition preferred a SLP (C) No. 15932and 15933 of 2020 before Supreme Court and an orderof status quo was granted and the same is pending on23.06.2014 the date when the defendant obtained afraudulent decree by filing a writ petition before HighCourt Madras under new land acquisition act, on04.04.2015 the date when the plaintiff wrote letter toadvocate who alleged to have represented on behalf ofthe plaintiff, on 19.04.2015 the date when the plaintiffreceived the reply admitting that plaintiffs and other landowners, during the month of November when theplaintiffs came to know about the fraudulent sale andon all other subsequent where the suit properties aresatiated within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court atCoimbatore.”

C.S. RAMASWAMY v. V. K. SENTHIL & ORS.[M.R. SHAH, J.]

7.3 In paragraph 19, the plaintiffs have made averments withrespect to the date of knowledge. Paragraph 19 reads as under:- A

“”19.The plaintiffs humbly submit that the plaintiffs and otherland owners have not sold the properties to the defendantat all. They did not receive any consideration from thedefendant at all they did not hand over any possessionBalso and the alleged fraudulent sale came to theknowledge of the plaintiffs only when the plaintiffsvisited the suit properties. Hence, immediately theplaintiffs and other land owners took steps to engagetheir own advocates and now the plaintiffs and otherCland owners are being represented by their own counselat Chennai. Hence, the plaintiffs in order to remove thecould cover the title of the land have filed the suit tocancel the alleged sale deeds executed by the plaintiffsin favour of the defendant through fraudulent means.”

D

7.4 Thereafter, in paragraph 20, it is averred and alleged as under:-

D

7.4 Thereafter, in paragraph 20, it is averred and alleged as under:- “20.The plaintiffs humbly submit that the defendant hasobtained the sale deed from the plaintiffs by fraudulentmeans therefore the alleged sale deed executed byplaintiffs in favour of the defendant as document No.3555/2005 dated 19.09.2005 has to be cancelled.”E

7.5 Therefore, even considering the averments and allegations inthe plaints only, it can be seen that even according to the plaintiffs, thecause of action for the suit arose on 19.09.2005, the date on which theplaintiffs executed the sale deed in favour of the defendant. In paragraph21, while considering the cause of action, it is further averred that thecause of action has arisen on:- F

(i) 20.09.1983 – when Section 4 Notification was issuedby the Government of Tamil Nadu;

(ii) when the Writ Petition No. 4079 of 1989 was filed; G

(iii) 07.07.1989 – the date when the said order in W.M.P.No. 5983 of 1989 was given; (iv)07.01.1994 – the date when the said order was vacated; H

A(v)01.04.1998 – the date when the plaintiffs filed a writappeal; (vi)01.04.1998- when the High Court quashed the entireacquisition proceedings and on subsequent dates whenthe Housing Board filed the special leave petitions beforethis Court.

B

7.6 From the aforesaid, it can be seen that most of the cause ofactions alleged are much prior to /prior to the execution of the registeredSale Deeds.

7.7 Even the averments and allegations with respect to knowledgeCof the plaintiffs averred in paragraph 19 can be said to be too vague.Nothing has been mentioned on which date and how the plaintiffs hadthe knowledge that the document was obtained by fraud and/ormisrepresentation. It is averred that the alleged fraudulent sale came tothe knowledge of the plaintiffs only when the plaintiffs visited the suitDproperty. Nothing has been mentioned when the plaintiffs visited the suitproperty. It is not understandable how on visiting the suit property, theplaintiffs could have known the contents of the sale deed and/or theknowledge about the alleged fraudulent sale.

7.8 Even the averments and allegations in the plaint with respectEto fraud are not supported by any further averments and allegations howthe fraud has been committed/played. Mere stating in the plaint that afraud has been played is not enough and the allegations of fraud must bespecifically averred in the plaint, otherwise merely by using the word“fraud”, the plaintiffs would try to get the suits within the limitation,which otherwise may be barred by limitation. Therefore, even if theFsubmission on behalf of the respondents – original plaintiffs that only theaverments and allegations in the plaints are required to be considered atthe time of deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC isaccepted, in that case also by such vague allegations with respect to thedate of knowledge, the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to challenge theGdocuments after a period of 10 years. By such a clever drafting andusing the word “fraud”, the plaintiffs have tried to bring the suits withinthe period of limitation invoking Section 17 of the limitation Act. Theplaintiffs cannot be permitted to bring the suits within the period oflimitation by clever drafting, which otherwise is barred by limitation. Atthis stage, a recent decision of this Court in the case of RaghwendraH

Sharan Singh (supra) is required to be referred to. In the said decision,this Court had occasion to consider all earlier decisions on exercise ofpowers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, which are considered by thisCourt in paragraphs 6.4 to 6.9 as under:- “6.4. In T. Arivandandam [T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal,(1977) 4 SCC 467], while considering the very same provisioni.e. Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and the decree of the trial court inconsidering such application, this Court in para 5 has observedand held as under: (SCC p. 470)

“5. We have not the slightest hesitation in condemningthe petitioner for the gross abuse of the process of thecourt repeatedly and unrepentantly resorted to. Fromthe statement of the facts found in the judgment of theHigh Court, it is perfectly plain that the suit now pendingbefore the First Munsif’s Court, Bangalore, is a flagrantmisuse of the mercies of the law in receiving plaints.The learned Munsif must remember that if on ameaningful — not formal — reading of the plaint it ismanifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of notdisclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise hispower under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC taking care to seethat the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, ifclever drafting has created the illusion of a cause ofaction, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examiningthe party searchingly under Order 10 CPC. An activistJudge is the answer to irresponsible law suits.”

6.5. In Church of Christ Charitable Trust & EducationalCharitable Society [Church of Christ Charitable Trust &Educational Charitable Society v. Ponniamman EducationalTrust, (2012) 8 SCC 706], this Court in para 13 has observedand held as under: (SCC p. 715)

“13. While scrutinising the plaint averments, it is thebounden duty of the trial court to ascertain the materialsfor cause of action. The cause of action is a bundle offacts which taken with the law applicable to them givesthe plaintiff the right to relief against the defendant. Everyfact which is necessary for the plaintiff to prove to enable A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

him to get a decree should be set out in clear terms. It isworthwhile to find out the meaning of the words “causeof action”. A cause of action must include some actdone by the defendant since in the absence of such anact no cause of action can possibly accrue.”

6.6. In ABC Laminart (P) Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies [(1989) 2 SCC163], this Court explained the meaning of “cause of action” asfollows: (SCC p. 170, para 12)

“12. A cause of action means every fact, which iftraversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to provein order to support his right to a judgment of the court.In other words, it is a bundle of facts which taken withthe law applicable to them gives the plaintiff a right torelief against the defendant. It must include some actdone by the defendant since in the absence of such anact no cause of action can possibly accrue. It is notlimited to the actual infringement of the right sued onbut includes all the material facts on which it is founded.It does not comprise evidence necessary to prove suchfacts, but every fact necessary for the plaintiff to proveto enable him to obtain a decree. Everything which ifnot proved would give the defendant a right to immediatejudgment must be part of the cause of action. But it hasno relation whatever to the defence which may be setup by the defendant nor does it depend upon thecharacter of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff.”

6.7. In Sopan Sukhdeo Sable [Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. CharityCommr., (2004) 3 SCC 137] in paras 11 and 12, this Court hasobserved as under: (SCC p. 146)

“11. In ITC Ltd. v. Debts Recovery AppellateTribunal [ITC Ltd. v. Debts Recovery AppellateTribunal, (1998) 2 SCC 70] it was held that the basicquestion to be decided while dealing with an applicationfiled under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code is whether areal cause of action has been set out in the plaint orsomething purely illusory has been stated with a view toget out of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code.

12. The trial court must remember that if on a meaningfuland not formal reading of the plaint it is manifestlyvexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing aclear right to sue, it should exercise the power underOrder 7 Rule 11 of the Code taking care to see that theground mentioned therein is fulfilled. If clever draftinghas created the illusion of a cause of action, it has to benipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining theparty searchingly under Order 10 of the Code. (See T.Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal [(1977) 4 SCC 467].)”

6.8. In Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy [Madanuri SriRama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal, (2017) 13 SCC 174], thisCourt has observed and held as under: (SCC pp. 178-79, para7)

“7. The plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 ifconditions enumerated in the said provision are fulfilled.It is needless to observe that the power under Order 7Rule 11 CPC can be exercised by the court at any stageof the suit. The relevant facts which need to be lookedinto for deciding the application are the averments ofthe plaint only. If on an entire and meaningful readingof the plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestlyvexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosingany right to sue, the court should exercise power underOrder 7 Rule 11 CPC. Since the power conferred onthe court to terminate civil action at the threshold isdrastic, the conditions enumerated under Order 7 Rule11 CPC to the exercise of power of rejection of plainthave to be strictly adhered to. The averments of theplaint have to be read as a whole to find out whetherthe averments disclose a cause of action or whetherthe suit is barred by any law. It is needless to observethat the question as to whether the suit is barred by anylaw, would always depend upon the facts andcircumstances of each case. The averments in thewritten statement as well as the contentions of thedefendant are wholly immaterial while considering theprayer of the defendant for rejection of the plaint. Even A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Awhen the allegations made in the plaint are taken to becorrect as a whole on their face value, if they show thatthe suit is barred by any law, or do not disclose cause ofaction, the application for rejection of plaint can beentertained and the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPCcan be exercised. If clever drafting of the plaint hasBcreated the illusion of a cause of action, the court willnip it in the bud at the earliest so that bogus litigationwill end at the earlier stage.”

A

6.9. In Ram Singh [Ram Singh v. Gram Panchayat Mehal Kalan,(1986) 4 SCC 364], this Court has observed and held that whenCthe suit is barred by any law, the plaintiff cannot be allowed tocircumvent that provision by means of clever drafting so as toavoid mention of those circumstances, by which the suit is barredby law of limitation.”

7.9 Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaidDdecisions on exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to thefacts of the case on hand and the averments in the plaints, we are of theopinion that both the Courts below have materially erred in not rejectingthe plaints in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. Therespective suits have been filed after a period of 10 years from the dateEof execution of the registered sale deeds. It is to be noted that one suitwas filed by the minor, which was filed in the year 2006, in which someof the plaintiffs herein were also party to the said suit and in the said suit,there was a specific reference to the Sale Deed dated 19.09.2005 andthe said suit came to be dismissed in the year 2014 and immediatelythereafter the present suits have been filed. Thus, from the avermentsFin the plaint and the bundle of facts stated in the plaint, we are of theopinion that by clever drafting, the plaintiffs have tried to bring the suitswithin the period of limitation, which otherwise are barred by limitation.Therefore, considering the decisions of this Court in the case of T.Arivandandam (supra) and other decision of Raghwendra SharanGSingh (supra), and as the respective suits are barred by the law oflimitation, the respective plaints are required to be rejected in exerciseof powers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all theseappeals succeed. The impugned common judgment and order passed H

C.S. RAMASWAMY v. V. K. SENTHIL & ORS.[M.R. SHAH, J.]

by the High Court rejecting the revision applications and the orders passedAby the learned Trial Court rejecting the respective applications underOrder VII Rule 11 CPC and refusing to reject the plaints in exercise ofpowers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC are hereby quashed and set aside.The respective applications filed by the appellant herein – originaldefendant to reject the respective plaints on the ground that the sameBare barred by the law of limitation are hereby allowed. The respectiveplaints are hereby rejected on the ground that the same are barred bylimitation.

A

Present appeals are accordingly allowed. However, in the factsand circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

C

Divya Pandey and Anurag Bhaskar(Assisted by : Adnan Khan, LCRA)

Appeals allowed.

D

E

F

G

H