Suit for Partition and Declaration is Barred by Limitation Where Predecessor Alienated Property via Registered Deed Eight Decades Prior.

The appellants (plaintiffs), claiming to be the grandchildren of Pandit Narasimhaiya, filed a suit in 2022 for partition of a 47-acre agricultural property and a declaration that three Sale Deeds from 1980 and two Release Deeds from 2020 were not binding on them

They alleged the property was ancestral and the documents were forged

Respondents 6 and 7 moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint, contending that the property was sold by the grandfather in 1944 via a registered deed—a fact suppressed by the plaintiffs—and that the suit was barred by limitation and lacked a cause of action

The Trial Court rejected the plaint on February 24, 2023

1. Whether the learned Trial Court erred in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC on the grounds of limitation and lack of cause of action?

The court applied Order VII Rule 11 (a), (b), and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regarding the rejection of a plaint that fails to disclose a cause of action or is barred by law

It relied on the precedent Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) (2020) 7 SCC 366, which establishes that "clever drafting" creating an illusory cause of action should be terminated at the threshold to prevent sham litigation

The court also invoked Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribe a three-year period for seeking a declaration or setting aside an instrument from the time the right to sue first accrues or the facts become known

On a meaningful reading of the plaint and the documents specifically annexed by the plaintiffs (the 2020 Release Deeds), the court found that the title had already been transferred by the grandfather via a registered Sale Deed in 1944

The court noted that the appellants, who were not even born in 1944, failed to challenge the original 1944 alienation or any subsequent transactions leading up to the 1980 deeds

The court determined that the allegations of "fraud" were vague, unspecified, and lacked necessary particulars

Since the registration of a sale deed constitutes constructive notice, the challenge brought 42 years after the 1980 deeds (and 78 years after the 1944 deed) was held to be a result of "clever drafting" to bypass the three-year limitation period under Articles 58 and 59

The court held that the litigation was vexatious and meritless, justifying rejection at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. The appeal was dismissed, and the costs imposed on the appellants were reduced to Rs. 10,000