The Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari held on 30.09.2022, in an appeal arising out of order of High Court of Judicature at Madras that "mere stating in the plaint that a fraud has been played is not enough and the allegations of fraud must be specifically averred in the plaint, otherwise merely by using the word “fraud”, the plaintiffs would try to get the suits within the limitation, which otherwise may be barred by limitation".

The Bench further observed that by clever drafting, the plaintiffs could try to bring the suits within the period of limitation by taking the plea of fraud.

In the instant case, the original plaintiffs have filed the suits before the Trial Court for cancellation of the sale deed executed by the plaintiffs in favor of the defendant as null and void and also to declare that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property and consequently restrain the defendant from in any manner alienating the suit schedule property. The defendant herein filed applications before Trial Court to reject the plaints under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC mainly on the ground that the respective suits were clearly barred by the law of limitation. The said applications were resisted by the plaintiffs by submitting that the Sale Deeds dated 12.09.2005, 19.09.2005, 22.09.2005, 29.09.2005, and 30.09.2005 for which the relief to cancel the same has been prayed in the suit was obtained by fraudulent misrepresentation and it was obtained by fraud. As per the plaintiffs, by fraudulent misrepresentation of the character of the document, i.e., as if it is a Joint Development Project, the defendant got the sale deeds, and the plaintiffs without knowing the contents of the documents have executed the said deeds. According to the plaintiffs, they came to know about the same only in April 2015, and immediately thereafter they filed the present suits.

This Application of the defendant was dismissed by the Trial Court and the Revision Petition preferred before the High Court was also dismissed which gave rise to the petition before the Supreme Court.

With regard to the submission before it, the Bench observed that "At the outset, it is required to be noted that by filing the respective suits, the original plaintiffs have prayed to cancel the registered Sale Deeds, which were executed by the original plaintiffs. The respective suits have been filed in the year 2015/2016, i.e., after a period of 10 years from the date of execution of such registered sale deeds. Therefore, the defendant filed the applications and prayed to reject the respective plaints in the exercise of the powers under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC on the ground that the suits are clearly barred by the law of limitation. On the other hand, it is the case on behalf of the plaintiffs that as the sale deeds/documents were got executed by fraud and misrepresentation and the plaintiffs signed the said documents believing or treating it as a Joint Venture Agreement and the plaintiffs did not go through the contents of the said documents and as in the year 2015, the plaintiffs came to know about such fraud and obtaining the documents/sale deeds by misrepresentation, considering Section 17 of the Limitation Act, the said suits cannot be said to be barred by limitation."

The Court observed that a mere statement in the ain't that fraud has been played is not sufficient and it has to be established and supported by documents in the plaint. The Court remarked "Therefore, even if the submission on behalf of the respondents – original plaintiffs that only the averments and allegations in the plaints are required to be considered at the time of deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is accepted, in that case also by such vague allegations with respect to the date of knowledge, the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to challenge the documents after a period of 10 years. By such a clever drafting and using the word “fraud”, the plaintiffs have tried to bring the suits within the period of limitation invoking Section 17 of the Limitation Act. The plaintiffs cannot be permitted to bring the suits within the period of limitation by clever drafting, which otherwise is barred by limitation.

The bench further observed that "respective suits have been filed after a period of 10 years from the date of execution of the registered sale deeds. It is to be noted that one suit was filed by the minor, which was filed in the year 2006, in which some of the plaintiffs herein were also party to the said suit, and in the said suit, there was a specific reference to the Sale Deed dated 19.09.2005 and the said suit came to be dismissed in the year 2014 and immediately thereafter the present suits have been filed. Thus, from the averments in the plaint and the bundle of facts stated in the plaint, we are of the opinion that by clever drafting, the plaintiffs have tried to bring the suits within the period of limitation, which otherwise are barred by limitation."

Case Details:-

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 500 OF 2022
C.S. Ramaswamy …Appellant(s)
Versus
V.K. Senthil & Ors. …Respondent(s)

Read the complete judgment on the link below:-

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/12883/12883_2020_7_1502_38707_Judgement_30-Sep-2022.pdf