-
by Admin
19 February 2026 9:36 AM
“Where the plaintiff specifically pleads a date of knowledge, the bar of limitation cannot be presumed from past proceedings—limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and must be tried as such”, ruled the Allahabad High Court while reversing a trial court’s rejection of a suit for cancellation of fraudulent sale deeds.
Allahabad High Court (Justice Sandeep Jain) set aside the trial court’s order that had rejected a civil suit under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on the ground that it was time-barred under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
The Court decisively ruled that where plaintiffs are not executants of the impugned sale deed and claim that they gained knowledge of the document only recently, limitation must be treated as a factual issue that cannot be summarily decided.
"The Written Statement Is Irrelevant When Deciding Application Under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC": Court Rebukes Trial Court’s Inference-Based Rejection
The High Court opened its judgment by declaring that "the only question for determination at the stage of Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC is whether the plaint, on its face, discloses a legal bar to the suit." If not, the suit must proceed to trial.
Justice Sandeep Jain observed that the trial court erred in drawing inferences about prior knowledge of the plaintiffs from previous litigation dating back to 1992, despite the plaintiffs asserting in their plaint that they only discovered the impugned 1988 sale deeds on 14.12.2021.
“Only the averments in the plaint are relevant while deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d). The merits of the defence or inferences from the written statement are wholly immaterial at this stage.”
The Court held that the trial judge's decision was based on “selective reading” of the plaint, ignoring material assertions about fraud and concealed mutation which had been made by the defendants in alleged collusion with revenue officials during consolidation proceedings of 1357 Fasli (circa 1950s).
“Limitation Begins When Fraud Is Discovered—Not From Date of Sale Deed”: Sale Deed Executed in 1988 Can Be Challenged in 2022, Rules High Court
The case arose from a suit filed by the plaintiffs in 2022 seeking cancellation of two sale deeds executed in 1988 by the predecessors of defendant-first party in favour of defendant-second party. The plaintiffs, relying on sale deeds dated 03.03.1945, claimed to be the lawful owners of the agricultural land in question.
The plaintiffs contended that they remained unaware of the fraudulent transfer of land through sale deeds in 1988 because the defendants regularly remitted agricultural profits to them, preventing any suspicion. Only upon legal inquiry in late 2021 did they discover the impugned documents and fraud.
The trial court rejected the suit, holding that since the plaintiffs had participated in revenue proceedings in 1992, they had knowledge of the sale deeds back then, and the suit filed in 2022 was beyond the three-year limitation period under Article 59.
The High Court, however, decisively disagreed: “Where the plaintiff is not the executant of the sale deed, limitation under Article 59 begins not from the date of execution but from the date the plaintiff has knowledge of the deed. Determination of such knowledge requires evidence and cannot be summarily presumed.”
Referring to the Supreme Court’s rulings, the Court reiterated that “fraud nullifies limitation until it is discovered” and courts must accept the plaint’s averments as true at the preliminary stage.
“Averments in the Plaint Raise Triable Issues—Rejection at Threshold Is a Grave Error”: Allahabad High Court Allows First Appeal, Revives Civil Suit
Justice Sandeep Jain held that the plaintiffs had raised serious allegations of fraud, collusion, concealed mutation during consolidation, and illegal sale of ancestral land, which required examination through a full-fledged trial.
“The plaintiffs’ case discloses a cause of action arising from their discovery of fraud in December 2021, and not from any event in 1992. Their pleading that they were misled for decades by regular profit-sharing cannot be rejected without evidence.”
The Court further observed: “Limitation is a mixed question of law and fact. Unless the plaint itself shows a clear and unequivocal bar to the suit, the trial must proceed. Summary rejection of suits alleging fraud, based on inferences and past litigation, undermines access to justice.”
The judgment criticises the trial court for ignoring the plaintiffs’ explicit pleadings that the 1992 revenue case had no relation to the 1988 sale deeds, and that no relief of cancellation was claimed in that proceeding.
High Court Directs Expeditious Trial and Restores Suit for Cancellation of Fraudulent Sale Deeds
Allowing the appeal, the Allahabad High Court ruled: “The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 05.05.2025 passed in O.S. No. 238 of 2022 is hereby set aside. The original suit is restored to its original number. The defendants’ application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is dismissed.”
The Court further directed: “The trial court shall decide the suit expeditiously, preferably within one year from the date a certified copy of this judgment is served, and shall not grant unnecessary adjournments.”
While both parties were directed to bear their own costs, the High Court made it clear that "interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated", and the lower court record was ordered to be returned immediately.
This judgment affirms and reinforces the procedural principle that:
“When a plaint specifically alleges the date of knowledge of a fraudulent act, such as a sale deed, limitation under Article 59 is to be computed from that date—not from the date of execution, especially when the plaintiff is not a party to the document.”
It serves as a clear caution to trial courts against misusing Order 7 Rule 11 CPC as a tool to reject suits involving disputed facts, especially allegations of fraud, without evidence.
Date of Decision: 7 October 2025
