The judgement in the case of Daliben Valjibhai & Ors. v. Prajapati Kodarbhai Kachrabhai & Anr. was delivered by Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra.
This case revolved around the issue of limitation in a suit for cancellation of a registered sale deed. The central question was whether the suit, filed 13 years after the sale deed’s execution, was barred by limitation or whether it could proceed based on the plaintiffs’ claim of having discovered the fraud only in 2017.
The appellants alleged that the sale deed dated December 4, 2004, was executed fraudulently by forging their signatures and photographs. They claimed to have become aware of the fraudulent deed on March 31, 2017, when they received notice from the Deputy Collector concerning revenue records. They filed the suit on April 18, 2017, seeking cancellation of the sale deed.
The Trial Court dismissed the suit under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC, citing that it was time-barred since it was filed 13 years after the sale deed’s execution. On appeal, the First Appellate Court reversed this decision, holding that limitation was a mixed question of law and fact, requiring trial. The High Court, however, reinstated the Trial Court’s decision, stating that the plaintiffs should be deemed to have knowledge of the sale deed from the date of its registration in 2004.
The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision and restored the judgment of the First Appellate Court. It emphasized that the limitation period for a fraud-based claim under Article 59 of the Limitation Act begins when the fraud is discovered, not from the date of registration. It reiterated that a plaint could not be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, unless it unequivocally disclosed that the suit was barred by law. Issues of fraud and limitation often involve mixed questions of law and fact, which requires trial. The Supreme Court restored the First Appellate Court’s judgment and directed the Trial Court to expedite the case while refraining from commenting on the merits.