Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (2020)
Facts
- Case deals with a controversy over the sale of agricultural land held in restrictive tenure under Section 73AA of the Land Revenue Code.
- The plaintiff, Dahiben, applied to the Collector for leave to sell her agricultural land to Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali, and no objection was made to the sale.
- The Collector allowed the sale subject to the terms and conditions imposed by Section 73AA of the Land Revenue Code.
- Afterwards, Arvindbhai sold the same property to the other respondents without liquidating his arrears payable to Dahiben.
- Dahiben filed a Special Civil Suit against Arvindbhai and the later purchasers by claiming that sale consideration had not been received fully, and she should be allowed to cancel their respective sale deeds.
- Upon which, the defendants submitted an application of, Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), asserting that the suit was not within time and did not present a valid cause of action.
Issues
1. Whether the limitation period for the suit should run from the date the right to sue first arose, especially in relation to the alleged breach of contract.
2. Whether subsequent sale deeds executed by Arvindbhai to other buyers could be declared void on the grounds of non-payment of the original sale consideration.
Judgment
- The Court restated the principle of Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC that directs the rejection of a plaint if the plaint is found to be prohibited by any law. As noted earlier, it is axiomatic that a plaint must disclose a real and viable cause of action. This Court held Dahiben's suit does not do so.
- It was found that the Court held Dahiben's cause of action accrued the moment she learnt that cheques issued by Arvindbhai were fraudulent and not when the property was sold by Arvindbhai to other defendants.
- The Court held that Dahiben had delayed in filing the suit by more than five and a half years from the date of discovery of the alleged fraud. That the suit was time-barred under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, which applies to suits based on a breach of contract or non-payment of the sale consideration.
- The Court observed that the full sale consideration not having been paid would not, per se, be a ground for cancellation of the registered sale deed. Dahiben's remedy lay in seeking other forms of relief, such as recovery of the outstanding payment, but not in seeking the annulment of the sale deed.
- That in the circumstances of this case, Dahiben's attempt at strategic drafting of her plaint cannot override the legal limit set by law. No process of the court was called upon to be abused and a cause of action must not be fabricated. The rejection was an exercise of judicial discretion perfectly well within the competence and was thus upheld.
