Limitation Begins from Discovery of Fraud, Not From Date of Entry: Gujarat High Court Restores Partition Suit Dismissed at Threshold

“Unregistered Statement Before Talati Cannot Extinguish Inheritance Rights”— Gujarat High Court held that a suit for partition of ancestral property could not be rejected as barred by limitation when the plaintiff had specifically pleaded fraud and late discovery of relinquishment documents. The Court set aside the 2016 judgment of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad Rural, which had rejected the suit under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, citing it as time-barred.

Justice Nisha M. Thakore, writing for the Division Bench with Acting Chief Justice Biren Vaishnav, held:

“Treating a 1978 revenue entry as the starting point of limitation would amount to accepting the defence at the stage of Order VII Rule 11, which is impermissible.”

The plaintiff, Bhanuben Chandubhai Patel, sought partition of ancestral agricultural lands in Ahmedabad district, claiming a 1/3rd share as a Class I heir of her father, Shankarbhai Gokalbhai Patel, who died in 1966. Her name was originally included in the mutation entry no. 1014, but later removed based on an alleged release statement dated 24 February 1978—a document she claimed was forged.

She filed Special Civil Suit No. 607 of 2013, stating that she only became aware of the fraudulent statement after seeing a public notice published in 2012, which led her to inspect the revenue records. The trial court rejected her suit as time-barred, holding that limitation began in 1978 when her name was removed from the records.

Fraud and Limitation are Triable Issues

The High Court found that the suit raised serious triable issues of fact and law concerning fraud, and that the limitation period under Section 17 of the Limitation Act would begin only upon discovery of the fraud, not the date of the forged entry.

“A possible case has been pleaded by the plaintiff which calls for scrutiny by appreciation of evidence… treating entry no. 1177 of 1978 as starting point of limitation amounts to accepting the defence.”

The Court also noted that the plaintiff had produced an expert opinion suggesting forgery, and that she had not received any notice under Section 135(d) of the Land Revenue Code. It held that:

“Whether the 1978 statement constitutes lawful relinquishment is itself a question requiring evidence… Mere revenue entries are not determinative of title or relinquishment under law.”

Registered Deed is Essential for Relinquishment

Citing Sitaram Bhama v. Ram Avtar Bhama and Yellapu Uma Maheshwari v. Buddha Jagadheeswararao, the Court emphasized that:

“Relinquishment of rights in immovable property must be through a registered document. Statements before revenue officers cannot substitute such legal formality.”

Partition Suit Cannot Be Thrown Out at Threshold

Addressing the nature of partition suits, the Bench held that:

“The issue of limitation in a partition suit involving claims of fraud and inheritance is a mixed question of fact and law. It cannot be decided merely on pleadings at the Order VII Rule 11 stage.”

Even assuming the relief of cancellation of sale deeds was barred, the Court stressed:

“The plaint could not be rejected in entirety if other reliefs, like partition, were still maintainable.”

It also noted that the subsequent sale transactions of some of the lands could not bar the plaintiff from claiming her undivided share, especially when no registered partition deed existed.

Restoring the plaintiff’s suit, the Court held that the trial court erred in dismissing it without trial, particularly when claims of forgery, fraud, and concealment had been specifically pleaded and supported by documentary evidence.

Justice Nisha Thakore concluded:

“The plaintiff has made specific averments of fraud, supported by expert opinion… The rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 was premature and unsustainable.”

Date of Decision: April 7, 2025