TMI Blog2005 (7) TMI 705X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perty under alleged oral agreement on return of loan has been deliberately omitted from the relief clause. In our view, the present plaint is liable to rejection, if not on the ground that it does not disclose 'cause of action', on the ground that from the averments in the plaint, the suit is apparently barred by law within the meaning of Clause (d) of Order VII, Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court does not seem to be right in rejecting the plaint on the ground that it does not disclose any 'cause of action'. In our view, the trial court was right in coming to the conclusion that accepting all averments in the plaint, the suit seems to be barred by limitation. On critical examination of the plaint as discussed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds that if the plaint allegations containing all facts are read in proper perspective, 'cause of action' has clearly been pleaded and the High Court grossly erred in rejecting the plaint on the ground that it does not disclose any cause of action. 3. With the assistance and on the comments and counter comments of the parties, we have carefully gone through the contents of the plaint. We find that the plaint has been very cleverly drafted with a view to get over the bar of limitation and payment of ad valorem court fee. According to us, the plaint was rightly held to be liable to rejection if not on the alleged ground of non-disclosure of any cause of action but on the ground covered by Clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII of Code of C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he receipt was obtained on 25.3.1987 from the defendants and the original registered sale deed dated 5.5.53 was returned to the first plaintiff with an oral promise by the defendants to execute a registered document in favour of plaintiff/borrower. 6. On reading all the averments in paragraph 9 of the plaint, it is apparent that the cause of action for obtaining a registered reconveyance deed from the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs first arose on 25.3.1987 when the entire loan amount was alleged to have been repaid and an oral promise was given by the defendants to reconvey the suit lands. 7. In paragraph 11 of the plaint it is stated that the plaintiff had earlier filed Civil Suit No.557 of 1990 in the Court of Second Munsiff, Bang ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the lower authorities directing mutation of the names of the defendants on the suit lands and then again in the first week of July 1995 when the defendants as alleged had made an attempt to interfere with the plaintiffs' possession and enjoyment of suit lands. The suit was filed on 26.8.1996. In the prayer clause, the relief claimed in the suit are (a) declaration that the plaintiffs are absolute owners of the suit lands (b) permanent injunction restraining defendants from wrongfully entering the scheduled property and from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of scheduled lands. 10. As seen from the pleadings it is clear that foundation of the suit is that the registered sale deed dated 5.5.1953 was, in fact, only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been made as a camouflage to get over the bar of limitation. The dispute of mutation in the revenue court between the parties arose only on the basis of registered sale deed dated 5.5.1953. The orders passed by Tehsildar/Assistant Commissioner did not furnish any independent or fresh cause of action to seek declaration of the sale deed of 5.5.53 to be merely a loan transaction. The foundation of suit does not seem to be the adverse orders passed by revenue courts or authorities in mutation proceedings. The foundation of suit is clearly the registered sale deed of 1953 which is alleged to be a loan transaction and the alleged oral agreement of re-conveyance of the property on return of borrowed amount. 13. In paragraph 11 of the plaint, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by law within the meaning of Clause (d) of Order VII, Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure. 16. The High Court does not seem to be right in rejecting the plaint on the ground that it does not disclose any 'cause of action'. In our view, the trial court was right in coming to the conclusion that accepting all averments in the plaint, the suit seems to be barred by limitation. On critical examination of the plaint as discussed by us above, the suit seems to be clearly barred on the facts stated in the plaint itself. The suit as framed is prima facie barred by the law of limitation, provisions of Specific Relief Act as also under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 17. This is a fit case not only for rejecting the plaint but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
