Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2022 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 1462 - HC - Companies LawSeeking rejection of plaint on the ground that the Suit is barred by limitation - Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - HELD THAT:- It can be seen from the averments in the plaint, in particular paragraphs 27, 28, 29, 33 and 35 that the Plaintiff had challenged the impugned Conveyance Deeds on two main grounds one that the Plaintiff thought he was executing documents in furtherance of and for transferring his right, title and interest in favour of Defendant Nos.1 to 7 and thought that even Defendant Nos.8 to 12 are also transferring their rights in favour of Defendant Nos.1 to 7 simultaneously. The other ground of challenge to the Conveyance Deeds is that though Defendant Nos.10 to 12 approached the Plaintiff for settlement and agreed to pay consideration price for purchasing the suit properties, Defendant Nos.10 to 12 had not paid full consideration and hence there was no settlement. From reading of the plaint, it is apparent that the Plaintiff was aware that he was executing the documents/Conveyance Deeds to transfer his rights in the suit property in favour of another. He was thus conscious that the character of the documents was one, by which he was to receive consideration and he would to transfer his right, title and interest favour of another. If the Plaintiff were at all aggrieved by the Conveyance Deeds as to there being fraud as to the contents of the Conveyance Deeds, the Plaintiff was obligated to file a Suit for setting aside of the conveyance deeds and for which limitation of three years under Article 59 of the Limitation Act would be applicable. At the latest the present suit should have been filed within a period of three years from such knowledge which would be at the latest three years from 14.02.2017 when the Plaintiff had filed the affidavit in reply to the Chamber Summons and the three years period expired on 15.02.2020. It is clear from the decisions relied upon by the Plaintiff, in particular NINGAWWA VERSUS BYRAPPA AND ORS. [1968 (1) TMI 51 - SUPREME COURT] and Dularia Devi [1990 (3) TMI 381 - SUPREME COURT] that where there is no fraud with regard to character of the documents, but fraud with regard to contents of the documents, the documents are voidable and accordingly Suit will have to be filed within the time prescribed under Article 59 of the Limitation Act. The Plaintiff’s contention that since the impugned Conveyance Deeds are void ab initio there is no need for their cancellation and Article 59 of the Limitation Act would have no application cannot be accepted. The prayer in the plaint of possession clearly would follow the Conveyance Deeds having to be set aside and absent the setting aside of the Conveyance Deeds, the Suit for possession cannot stand on its own. Hence, Article 65 which provides a period of limitation of 12 years in the event the Plaintiff is seeking possession is not applicable and cannot save the Suit from being barred by the law of limitation. The decisions relied upon by the Defendants where the Plaintiff would have to sue for cancellation of the document and Article 59 of the Limitation Act being applicable are apposite. The learned Counsel for the Defendants are are correct in their submission that in the present case the issue raised by the Plaintiff in the present Suit is only as to “fraud with regard to the contents of the document” which in light of the settled law would require the Plaintiff to seek appropriate relief for setting aside and/or cancelling the document which in the present case are the Deeds of Conveyance, and that too within the prescribed period of three years from their learning of such alleged fraud with regard to the contents of the document. Further, it is well settled that fraud with regard to the contents of the document only make a document voidable and would have to be avoided by the person seeking to do the same - the decision of the Supreme Court in VEENA SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH L.R. VERSUS THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR/ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR (F/R) AND ORS. [2022 (5) TMI 1578 - SUPREME COURT] would not support the Plaintiff’s case. Plaintiff’s have in the Plaint admitted that it would be necessary for the Plaintiff to seek cancellation of the impugned Conveyance Deeds. The Plaintiff cannot rely on the suspension of limitation applicable to Suits by the Supreme Court in its orders in light of corona virus pandemic since March, 2020. This is in view of my finding that the present Suit would have to be filed latest by 15.02.2020 - Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act would be applicable for setting aside of the Conveyance Deeds. The period of limitation would undoubtedly be a period of three years for setting aside the impugned conveyance deeds and which period has in my view expired, prior to the filing of the present Suit. The Plaint filed in the captioned Suit is rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) on the ground that the Suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by the law of limitation - Application rejected.
|