http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  4500 of 2004

PETITIONER: N.V.Srinivasa Murthy and others                                  

RESPONDENT: Mariyamma (dead) by Proposed LRs and others              

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/07/2005

BENCH: D. M. Dharmadhikari & B. N. Srikrishna  

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T  

Dharmadhikari J.

       In these appeals preferred by the plaintiffs the only question  involved is  whether the trial court and the High Court were right in  holding  that the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil  Procedure was liable to rejection.  The High Court by the impugned  order passed in Misc. Second Appeal reversed the order of the first  appellate court and upheld that of the trial court.                  Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff in this appeal  contends 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.

       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 Civil Procedure namely that ’the suit appears from  the statement in the plaint to be clearly barred by law’.  

       As per the plaint allegations of the plaintiffs, their late father had  incurred some debts and had therefore borrowed a sum of Rs.2000/-  from the predecessor in title of the defendants.  By way of security for  the loan advanced, a registered sale deed was executed on 5.5.53 with  a contemporaneous oral agreement that on return of the borrowed  sum with interest payable thereon @ 6% per annum,  the registered  re-conveyance deed shall be executed in favour of the borrower. In  the plaint it is further averred that even after execution of the  registered sale deed,  which according to plaintiff was, in fact merely a  loan transaction, the father of the plaintiffs and thereafter the plaintiffs  continued to be in possession of the suit lands and paid the land  revenue.  The other averments in the plaint are that as the lands in  suit were already under mortgage with Bangalore Central Co-operative  Bank Ltd., they could not have been sold.  

       Further averment in the plaint is that the defendants had  executed a receipt on 30.7.1963 in favour of the first plaintiff  acknowledging return of certain amounts under the loan with an oral  promise to execute a registered reconveyance deed in favour of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

plaintiffs.  In paragraph 9 of the plaint a statement was made to the  effect that in respect of the registered sale deed of 1953, on payment  of entire outstanding amount of loan, the 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.   

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.

       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,  Bangalore seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants  from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit land by  the plaintiffs.  That suit, it is stated, was pending on the date of filing  of the present suit.

       In paragraph 12 there are averments with regard to the revenue  proceedings concerning mutation of names over the lands in question.   It is pleaded that the plaintiffs made formal application for mutation of  their names on the lands and at that time the village accountant, in  conspiracy with the second defendant, manipulated the revenue  records.  An ante-dated application for mutation was alleged to have  been filed by the defendants.  No date or year in which such  manipulation took place has been stated in the plaint.  The said  paragraph further reads that in the revenue proceedings Tehsildar  passed an order on 16.2.1990 directing the Deputy tehsildar to  personally inspect the lands in suit and then make entries in the  Pahanis (revenue records).  The Deputy Tehsildar, it is alleged made a  local inspection without giving any notice to the plaintiffs, and  thereafter, mutation in the revenue records was made in favour of the  second defendant.  The plaintiffs then challenged the order of the  Tehsildar and the Deputy Tehsildar by way of an appeal before the  Assistant Commissioner who confirmed the orders of the lower  revenue authorities.

       The cause of action is said to have arisen when the Assistant  Commissioner by order dated 28.4.1994 confirmed the orders 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.

       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 a  loan transaction executed to secure the amount borrowed by the  plaintiff’s predecessor.  The amount borrowed was alleged to have  been fully paid back on 25.3.1987 and in acknowledgement  thereof a  formal receipt was obtained.  At the same time, there was an alleged  oral agreement by the defendants to reconvey the property to the  plaintiff by registered deed.

       On the above averments, relief of declaring the registered sale  deed dated 5.5.1953 to be a loan transaction and second relief of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

Specific Performance of oral agreement of re-conveyance of the  property by registered instrument should and ought to have been  claimed in the suit.  A suit merely for declaration that the plaintiffs are  absolute owners of the suit lands could not have been claimed without  seeking declaration that the registered sale deed dated 5.5.1953 was a  loan transaction and not a real sale.  The cause of action for seeking  such a declaration and for obtaining re-conveyance deed according to  the plaintiff’s own averments in paragraph 9 of the plaint, arose on  25.3.1987 when the plaintiffs claimed to have paid back the entire  loan amount and obtained a promise from the defendants to reconvey  the property.  Reckoning the cause of action from 25.3.1987, the suit  filed on 26.8.1996, was hopelessly barred by time.

       The averments in paragraph 12 of the plaint concerning the  mutation proceedings before the revenue authorities did not furnish  any fresh cause of action for the suit and they appear to have 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.  

       In paragraph 11 of the plaint, the plaintiffs have stated that they  had earlier instituted original suit No.557 of 1990 seeking permanent  injunction against defendants and the said suit was pending when the  present suit was filed.  Whatever relief the petitioners desired to claim  from the civil court on the basis of averment with regard to the  registered sale deed of 1953 could and ought to have been claimed in  original civil suit No.557 of 1990 which was pending at that time.  The  second suit claiming indirectly relief of declaration and injunction is  apparently barred by Order 2, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

       After examining the pleadings of the plaint as discussed above,  we are clearly of the opinion that by clever drafting of the plaint the  civil suit which is hopelessly barred for seeking avoidance of registered  sale deed of 5.5.1953,  has been instituted by taking recourse to  orders passed in mutation proceedings by the Revenue Courts.  

Civil suit No.557 of 1990 was pending when the present suit was  filed. In the present suit,  the relief indirectly claimed is of declaring  the sale deed of 5.5.1953 to be not really a sale deed but a  loan  transaction. Relief of reconveyance of property 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 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.

       This is a fit case not only for rejecting the plaint but imposing

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

exemplary costs on the appellant on the observations of this Court in  the case of T. Arvindam vs.T.V.Satyapal [1977 (4) SCC 467] :-  

"The trial court must remember that if on a meaningful \026 no  formal \026 reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious and  meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, it  should exercise its power under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC taking  care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled.  If  clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, the  court must nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the  party searchingly under Order X, CPC.  An activist judge is the  answer to irresponsible law suits.  The trial courts would insist  imperatively on examining the party at the first hearing so that  bogus litigation can be shot down at the earliest stage.  The  Penal Code is also resourceful enough to meet such men (Ch.XI)   and must be triggered against them."  

In the result, the appeal fails with costs incurred throughout by  the respondents to be paid by the appellants.  A further cost in the  sum of Rs.10,000 (Rupees ten thousand only) is imposed on the  appellant to be paid to the respondents for prosecuting and prolonging  litigation up to this Court in a hopelessly barred suit.

27041