DAHIBEN versus ARVINDBHAI KALYANJI BHANUSALI (GAJRA) (D) THR LRS & ORS.

DAHIBEN versus ARVINDBHAI KALYANJI BHANUSALI (GAJRA) (D) THR LRS & ORS.

The plaint was correctly rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) because the registered Sale Deed dated 02.07.2009 unequivocally recorded receipt of the entire sale consideration and, even taking the plaintiffs' averments as true, non-payment of part of the consideration would not justify cancellation of a registered sale deed; further the suit was filed beyond the three-year limitation period (Articles 58/59 Limitation Act) and the plaintiffs failed to discharge the onus that the suit was within time, rendering the suit vexatious and meritless.

Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: DAHIBEN; Respondent/defendant: ARVINDBHAI KALYANJI BHANUSALI (GAJRA) (D) THR LRS. & ORS.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
09 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court Against the High Court Judgment Affirming Trial Court Order Rejecting Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Rejection of Plaint, Order VII Rule 11 CPC, Cause of Action, Limitation Act Articles 58 and 59, Cancellation of Sale Deed, Sale and Transfer of Immovable Property, Section 73 AA Land Revenue Code
Civil Procedure Property Law Limitation Law Revenue Law Rejection of Plaint Order VII Rule 11 CPC Cause of Action Limitation Act Articles 58 and 59 +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DAHIBEN

Appellant/plaintiff

ARVINDBHAI KALYANJI BHANUSALI (GAJRA) (D) THR LRS. & ORS.

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court Against the High Court Judgment Affirming Trial Court Order Rejecting Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC
  2. 2 Whether the suit was barred by limitation under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC and Articles 58/59 of the Limitation Act, 1963
  3. 3 Whether alleged non-payment of part of sale consideration could warrant cancellation of a registered sale deed

Ratio Decidendi

The plaint was correctly rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) because the registered Sale Deed dated 02.07.2009 unequivocally recorded receipt of the entire sale consideration and, even taking the plaintiffs' averments as true, non-payment of part of the consideration would not justify cancellation of a registered sale deed; further the suit was filed beyond the three-year limitation period (Articles 58/59 Limitation Act) and the plaintiffs failed to discharge the onus that the suit was within time, rendering the suit vexatious and meritless.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The Civil Appeal is dismissed.
  • The plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC as affirmed by the High Court and Trial Court.