Full Judgment Text
1
2025 INSC 434
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.2137 OF 2025)
SMT. UMA DEVI AND ORS. …APPELLANTS
VERSUS
SRI. ANAND KUMAR AND ORS. …RESPONDENTS
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 2032 OF 2025)
J U D G M E N T
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellants before this Court are defendants in a suit for
partition filed by the plaintiffs (respondent nos. 1 to 5 herein) in
the year 2023 under O.S. No. 6768/2023. The parties will be
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Nirmala Negi
Date: 2025.04.02
18:42:11 IST
Reason:
referred to as their position in the Trial Court.
3. The defendants moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of
the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘CPC’), seeking return of
2
the plaint on the grounds that the suit was not maintainable as
it was barred by limitation as well as on other grounds. The Trial
Court allowed the application and dismissed the suit.
4. Thereafter, plaintiffs (Respondent Nos.1-5 before us) filed an
appeal before High Court under Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC where
High Court (hereinafter ‘appellate court’) vide order dated
08.01.2025 held that there were triable issues in the case and it
could not be dismissed merely on an application under Order 7
Rule 11 CPC and consequently allowed the appeal, remanding
the matter back to the Trial Court.
5. This case pertains to a civil dispute concerning an immovable
property situated at Pattangere Village, Kengeri, Hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluk. The plaintiffs and defendants belong to
the same larger family.
6. The original owner of the property was Boranna, who passed
away leaving behind four sons: Nanjundappa, Siddappa,
Basappa, and Shivanna. The suit for partition was filed by the
grandchildren of Shivanna on 16.10.2023, alleging that the
family owned ancestral joint immovable property and that their
legitimate share had been denied. Consequently, they sought
3
partition, separate possession and allotment of their legitimate
share.
7. The four sons of Boranna, namely Nanjundappa, Siddappa,
Basappa and Shivanna, had their respective families. Shivanna
had five children namely, Mangalamma, Maribasamma,
Drakshayanamma, Shadaksharaiah and Varaprasada. While
Basappa had six children namely, Ganganna, Panchaksharaiah,
Mandevappa, Shanthappa, Nagarju and Prakash. Nanjundappa
and Siddappa also had a family of their own. The plaintiffs are
the children of Mangalamma. The Defendants in the suit
represent the remaining family (the appellants herein are the
representatives of Shanthappa).
8. The defendants raised a primary objection, asserting that the
property, originally owned by Boranna, had already been
partitioned by way of an oral partition in the year 1968 amongst
his four sons, through a family settlement. We have gone through
the revenue records, as placed before us, and it is evident that
this settlement was indeed acted upon. The revenue records
indicate the names of each of Boranna’s four sons and also that
the property had been mutated in their respective names, the
reason assigned for the change in the revenue records is the
4
family partition of the year 1968. Additionally, the defendants
contended that, based on the terms of the family settlement, the
daughter in law of Shivanna and other family members had
disposed their property through registered sale deeds executed
as far back as 1978. It is therefore clear that the plaintiffs had
full knowledge of this transaction.
9. The defendants further argued that the plaintiffs were effectively
challenging a sale deed executed by their own aunt. Since the
suit for partition was filed without contesting the sale deed, that
itself was legally untenable. Moreover, a registered sale deed
constitutes constructive notice to the world unless it is a case of
fraud, coercion, or minority and therefore there has to be a
presumption in law that the plaintiffs had knowledge of the sale
deed.
10. The Trial Court, considering these facts, allowed the application
under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and dismissed the suit, finding no
cause of action for filing the suit. However, the appellate court
found that there were triable issues that required consideration.
The appellate court was of the opinion that the plaintiffs had a
legitimate claim over the joint family properties, and in the
absence of any notice to the plaintiffs regarding the partition, the
5
suit was remanded back to the Trial Court for fresh
consideration.
11. The sole argument advanced by the respondents/plaintiffs is
that the suit was only for partition, filed in the year 2023 and
was within the limitation period as the limitation will be counted
from the date of their knowledge of the sale deed. However, upon
examining the pleadings before the Trial Court and appellate
court, it is evident that the plaintiff failed to address the crucial
question of when they became aware of the registered sale deeds.
If they had prior knowledge of the sale deeds, they failed to
specify the exact date of such knowledge. Additionally, the
pleadings suggest suppression of essential facts by the plaintiffs.
12. In the case at hand, partition took place way back in the year
1968, which is evident from the revenue record entries. The suit
is filed in the year 2023, i.e. after a period of 55 years. Further,
many of the family members had executed registered sale deeds
in the year 1978. These sale deeds have been attached, and on
perusal it is observed that these were in fact registered sale
deeds. A registered document provides a complete account of a
transaction to any party interested in the property. This Court in
6
the case of Suraj Lamp Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of
Haryana & Anr. (2012) 1 SCC 656 held as under:
“Registration of a document gives notice to the
world that such a document has been executed.
Registration provides safety and security to
transactions relating to immovable property,
even if the document is lost or destroyed. It gives
publicity and public exposure to documents
thereby preventing forgeries and frauds in
regard to transactions and execution of
documents. Registration provides information to
people who may deal with a property, as to the
nature and extent of the rights which persons
may have, affecting that property. In other
words, it enables people to find out whether any
particular property with which they are
concerned, has been subjected to any legal
obligation or liability and who is or are the
person(s) presently having right, title, and
interest in the property. It gives solemnity of
form and perpetuate documents which are of
legal importance or relevance by recording them,
where people may see the record and enquire
and ascertain what the particulars are and as
far as land is concerned what obligations exist
with regard to them. It ensures that every
person dealing with immovable property can
rely with confidence upon the statements
contained in the registers (maintained under the
said Act) as a full and complete account of all
transactions by which the title to the property
may be affected and secure extracts/copies
duly certified”.
13. Applying this settled principle of law, it can safely be assumed
that the predecessors of the plaintiffs had notice of the registered
sale deeds (executed in 1978), flowing from the partition that
7
took place way back in 1968, by virtue of them being registered
documents. In the lifetime of Mangalamma, these sale deeds
have not been challenged, neither has partition been sought.
Thus, the suit (filed in the year 2023) of the plaintiffs was prima
facie barred by law. The plaintiffs cannot reignite their rights
after sleeping on them for 45 years.
14. The learned senior counsel for the defendants/appellants, Mr.
Sundaram, relied upon the decision of this Court in Shri
Mukund Bhavan Trust & Ors. v. Shrimant Chhatrapati
Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle & Anr. (2024 SCC
OnLine SC 3844) to substantiate the contention that the suit
was barred by limitation. It was observed as follows:
“16. When a portion of the property has been
conveyed by court auction and registered in the
first instance and when another portion has been
conveyed by a registered sale deed in 1952,
there is a constructive notice from the date of
registration and the presumption under Section
3 of the Transfer of Property Act, comes into
operation. The possession, in the present case,
also has been rested with the appellant before
several decades, which operates as notice of title.
17. XXX
18. Continuing further with the plea of limitation,
the Courts below have held that 23 (1977) 4 SCC
467 the question of the suit being barred by
limitation can be decided at the time of trial as
the question of limitation is a mixed question of
law and facts. Though the question of limitation
8
generally is mixed question of law and facts,
when upon meaningful reading of the plaint, the
court can come to a conclusion that under the
given circumstances, after dissecting the vices of
clever drafting creating an illusion of cause of
action, the suit is hopelessly barred and the
plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11”.
15. In Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal (2017)
13 SCC 174 , this court laid down the scope of Order 7 Rule 11
CPC :
“The plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule
11 if conditions enumerated in the said provision
are fulfilled. It is needless to observe that the
power under Order VII Rule 11, CPC can be
exercised by the Court at any stage of the suit.
The relevant facts which need to be looked into
for deciding the application are the averments of
the plaint only. If on an entire and meaningful
reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is
manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense
of not disclosing any right to sue, the court should
exercise power under Order VII Rule 11, CPC.
Since the power conferred on the Court to
terminate civil action at the threshold is drastic,
the conditions enumerated under Order VII Rule
11 of CPC to the exercise of power of rejection of
plaint have to be strictly adhered to. The
averments of the plaint have to be read as a
whole to find out whether the averments disclose
a cause of action or whether the suit is barred by
any law. It is needless to observe that the
question as to whether the suit is barred by any
law, would always depend upon the facts and
circumstances of each case. The averments in the
written statement as well as the contentions of
the defendant are wholly immaterial while
considering the prayer of the defendant for
9
rejection of the plaint. Even when, the allegations
made in the plaint are taken to be correct as a
whole on their face value, if they show that the
suit is barred by any law, or do not disclose
cause of action, the application for rejection of
plaint can be entertained and the power
under Order V11 Rule 11 of CPC can be
exercised. 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”.
16. In Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (2020) 7 SCC
366 , it is stated as under –
“The underlying object of Order VII Rule 11 (a) is
that if in a suit, no cause of action is disclosed, or
the suit is barred by limitation under Rule 11 (d),
the Court would not permit the plaintiff to
unnecessarily protract the proceedings in the
suit. In such a case, it would be necessary to put
an end to the sham litigation, so that further
judicial time is not wasted”.
17. In our considered opinion, the Trial Court had rightly allowed the
application of the defendants/appellants under Order 7 Rule 11
CPC, holding that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was a
meaningless litigation, that it did not disclose a proper cause of
action and was barred by limitation. There were thus no
justifiable reasons for the appellate court to have remanded the
matter to the Trial Court.
10
18. The suit was indeed barred by limitation. Consequently, the
impugned order dated 08.01.2025 passed by the High Court is
set aside, and both these appeals are hereby allowed.
19. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
.......………………………….J.
[SUDHANSHU DHULIA]
..….....………………………….J.
[K. VINOD CHANDRAN]
NEW DELHI,
APRIL 2, 2025.
2025 INSC 434
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.2137 OF 2025)
SMT. UMA DEVI AND ORS. …APPELLANTS
VERSUS
SRI. ANAND KUMAR AND ORS. …RESPONDENTS
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 2032 OF 2025)
J U D G M E N T
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellants before this Court are defendants in a suit for
partition filed by the plaintiffs (respondent nos. 1 to 5 herein) in
the year 2023 under O.S. No. 6768/2023. The parties will be
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Nirmala Negi
Date: 2025.04.02
18:42:11 IST
Reason:
referred to as their position in the Trial Court.
3. The defendants moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of
the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘CPC’), seeking return of
2
the plaint on the grounds that the suit was not maintainable as
it was barred by limitation as well as on other grounds. The Trial
Court allowed the application and dismissed the suit.
4. Thereafter, plaintiffs (Respondent Nos.1-5 before us) filed an
appeal before High Court under Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC where
High Court (hereinafter ‘appellate court’) vide order dated
08.01.2025 held that there were triable issues in the case and it
could not be dismissed merely on an application under Order 7
Rule 11 CPC and consequently allowed the appeal, remanding
the matter back to the Trial Court.
5. This case pertains to a civil dispute concerning an immovable
property situated at Pattangere Village, Kengeri, Hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluk. The plaintiffs and defendants belong to
the same larger family.
6. The original owner of the property was Boranna, who passed
away leaving behind four sons: Nanjundappa, Siddappa,
Basappa, and Shivanna. The suit for partition was filed by the
grandchildren of Shivanna on 16.10.2023, alleging that the
family owned ancestral joint immovable property and that their
legitimate share had been denied. Consequently, they sought
3
partition, separate possession and allotment of their legitimate
share.
7. The four sons of Boranna, namely Nanjundappa, Siddappa,
Basappa and Shivanna, had their respective families. Shivanna
had five children namely, Mangalamma, Maribasamma,
Drakshayanamma, Shadaksharaiah and Varaprasada. While
Basappa had six children namely, Ganganna, Panchaksharaiah,
Mandevappa, Shanthappa, Nagarju and Prakash. Nanjundappa
and Siddappa also had a family of their own. The plaintiffs are
the children of Mangalamma. The Defendants in the suit
represent the remaining family (the appellants herein are the
representatives of Shanthappa).
8. The defendants raised a primary objection, asserting that the
property, originally owned by Boranna, had already been
partitioned by way of an oral partition in the year 1968 amongst
his four sons, through a family settlement. We have gone through
the revenue records, as placed before us, and it is evident that
this settlement was indeed acted upon. The revenue records
indicate the names of each of Boranna’s four sons and also that
the property had been mutated in their respective names, the
reason assigned for the change in the revenue records is the
4
family partition of the year 1968. Additionally, the defendants
contended that, based on the terms of the family settlement, the
daughter in law of Shivanna and other family members had
disposed their property through registered sale deeds executed
as far back as 1978. It is therefore clear that the plaintiffs had
full knowledge of this transaction.
9. The defendants further argued that the plaintiffs were effectively
challenging a sale deed executed by their own aunt. Since the
suit for partition was filed without contesting the sale deed, that
itself was legally untenable. Moreover, a registered sale deed
constitutes constructive notice to the world unless it is a case of
fraud, coercion, or minority and therefore there has to be a
presumption in law that the plaintiffs had knowledge of the sale
deed.
10. The Trial Court, considering these facts, allowed the application
under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and dismissed the suit, finding no
cause of action for filing the suit. However, the appellate court
found that there were triable issues that required consideration.
The appellate court was of the opinion that the plaintiffs had a
legitimate claim over the joint family properties, and in the
absence of any notice to the plaintiffs regarding the partition, the
5
suit was remanded back to the Trial Court for fresh
consideration.
11. The sole argument advanced by the respondents/plaintiffs is
that the suit was only for partition, filed in the year 2023 and
was within the limitation period as the limitation will be counted
from the date of their knowledge of the sale deed. However, upon
examining the pleadings before the Trial Court and appellate
court, it is evident that the plaintiff failed to address the crucial
question of when they became aware of the registered sale deeds.
If they had prior knowledge of the sale deeds, they failed to
specify the exact date of such knowledge. Additionally, the
pleadings suggest suppression of essential facts by the plaintiffs.
12. In the case at hand, partition took place way back in the year
1968, which is evident from the revenue record entries. The suit
is filed in the year 2023, i.e. after a period of 55 years. Further,
many of the family members had executed registered sale deeds
in the year 1978. These sale deeds have been attached, and on
perusal it is observed that these were in fact registered sale
deeds. A registered document provides a complete account of a
transaction to any party interested in the property. This Court in
6
the case of Suraj Lamp Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of
Haryana & Anr. (2012) 1 SCC 656 held as under:
“Registration of a document gives notice to the
world that such a document has been executed.
Registration provides safety and security to
transactions relating to immovable property,
even if the document is lost or destroyed. It gives
publicity and public exposure to documents
thereby preventing forgeries and frauds in
regard to transactions and execution of
documents. Registration provides information to
people who may deal with a property, as to the
nature and extent of the rights which persons
may have, affecting that property. In other
words, it enables people to find out whether any
particular property with which they are
concerned, has been subjected to any legal
obligation or liability and who is or are the
person(s) presently having right, title, and
interest in the property. It gives solemnity of
form and perpetuate documents which are of
legal importance or relevance by recording them,
where people may see the record and enquire
and ascertain what the particulars are and as
far as land is concerned what obligations exist
with regard to them. It ensures that every
person dealing with immovable property can
rely with confidence upon the statements
contained in the registers (maintained under the
said Act) as a full and complete account of all
transactions by which the title to the property
may be affected and secure extracts/copies
duly certified”.
13. Applying this settled principle of law, it can safely be assumed
that the predecessors of the plaintiffs had notice of the registered
sale deeds (executed in 1978), flowing from the partition that
7
took place way back in 1968, by virtue of them being registered
documents. In the lifetime of Mangalamma, these sale deeds
have not been challenged, neither has partition been sought.
Thus, the suit (filed in the year 2023) of the plaintiffs was prima
facie barred by law. The plaintiffs cannot reignite their rights
after sleeping on them for 45 years.
14. The learned senior counsel for the defendants/appellants, Mr.
Sundaram, relied upon the decision of this Court in Shri
Mukund Bhavan Trust & Ors. v. Shrimant Chhatrapati
Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle & Anr. (2024 SCC
OnLine SC 3844) to substantiate the contention that the suit
was barred by limitation. It was observed as follows:
“16. When a portion of the property has been
conveyed by court auction and registered in the
first instance and when another portion has been
conveyed by a registered sale deed in 1952,
there is a constructive notice from the date of
registration and the presumption under Section
3 of the Transfer of Property Act, comes into
operation. The possession, in the present case,
also has been rested with the appellant before
several decades, which operates as notice of title.
17. XXX
18. Continuing further with the plea of limitation,
the Courts below have held that 23 (1977) 4 SCC
467 the question of the suit being barred by
limitation can be decided at the time of trial as
the question of limitation is a mixed question of
law and facts. Though the question of limitation
8
generally is mixed question of law and facts,
when upon meaningful reading of the plaint, the
court can come to a conclusion that under the
given circumstances, after dissecting the vices of
clever drafting creating an illusion of cause of
action, the suit is hopelessly barred and the
plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11”.
15. In Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal (2017)
13 SCC 174 , this court laid down the scope of Order 7 Rule 11
CPC :
“The plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule
11 if conditions enumerated in the said provision
are fulfilled. It is needless to observe that the
power under Order VII Rule 11, CPC can be
exercised by the Court at any stage of the suit.
The relevant facts which need to be looked into
for deciding the application are the averments of
the plaint only. If on an entire and meaningful
reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is
manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense
of not disclosing any right to sue, the court should
exercise power under Order VII Rule 11, CPC.
Since the power conferred on the Court to
terminate civil action at the threshold is drastic,
the conditions enumerated under Order VII Rule
11 of CPC to the exercise of power of rejection of
plaint have to be strictly adhered to. The
averments of the plaint have to be read as a
whole to find out whether the averments disclose
a cause of action or whether the suit is barred by
any law. It is needless to observe that the
question as to whether the suit is barred by any
law, would always depend upon the facts and
circumstances of each case. The averments in the
written statement as well as the contentions of
the defendant are wholly immaterial while
considering the prayer of the defendant for
9
rejection of the plaint. Even when, the allegations
made in the plaint are taken to be correct as a
whole on their face value, if they show that the
suit is barred by any law, or do not disclose
cause of action, the application for rejection of
plaint can be entertained and the power
under Order V11 Rule 11 of CPC can be
exercised. 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”.
16. In Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (2020) 7 SCC
366 , it is stated as under –
“The underlying object of Order VII Rule 11 (a) is
that if in a suit, no cause of action is disclosed, or
the suit is barred by limitation under Rule 11 (d),
the Court would not permit the plaintiff to
unnecessarily protract the proceedings in the
suit. In such a case, it would be necessary to put
an end to the sham litigation, so that further
judicial time is not wasted”.
17. In our considered opinion, the Trial Court had rightly allowed the
application of the defendants/appellants under Order 7 Rule 11
CPC, holding that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was a
meaningless litigation, that it did not disclose a proper cause of
action and was barred by limitation. There were thus no
justifiable reasons for the appellate court to have remanded the
matter to the Trial Court.
10
18. The suit was indeed barred by limitation. Consequently, the
impugned order dated 08.01.2025 passed by the High Court is
set aside, and both these appeals are hereby allowed.
19. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
.......………………………….J.
[SUDHANSHU DHULIA]
..….....………………………….J.
[K. VINOD CHANDRAN]
NEW DELHI,
APRIL 2, 2025.