In Santosh Devi v. Sunder [SLP (Civil) No.12658 of 2025], the Supreme Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed against concurrent findings of the Trial Court, First Appellate Court, and the High Court. The Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan held that under Order VII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff seeking exemption from limitation must specifically plead the grounds relied upon, and that vague and general allegations of fraud are legally insufficient.
Background:
The petitioner, Santosh Devi, filed Civil Suit No. 310-RBT of 2012 in the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ganaur, seeking (i) a declaration that Sale Deed No. 638 dated 26.05.2008 and Mutation No. 5340 dated 29.08.2008 were null and void to the extent of the defendant’s half share; (ii) mandatory injunction directing rectification of the mutation and execution of a new sale deed; and (iii) a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, Sunder, from alienating the land.
The suit was filed on 12.10.2012, and the petitioner contended that the cause of action arose upon discovery of the alleged fraud in March 2010 and subsequent refusal by the defendant in October 2012.
Trial Court Findings:
The Trial Court dismissed the suit as time-barred, holding that the plaintiff had full knowledge of the sale deed’s execution at the time it was registered in 2008. The Court noted the plaintiff’s own admission during cross-examination that she had signed the document and appeared before the Sub-Registrar. The court found no credible basis for the alleged fraud, citing her status as an educated property dealer.
Relying on Janardhanam Prasad v. Ramdas, the Trial Court concluded that limitation begins from the date of registration of the sale deed and that the suit was filed beyond the prescribed three-year limitation period under Article 59 of the Limitation Act.
First Appellate Court Observations:
The First Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s reasoning. It emphasised that the plaintiff had admitted to signing the sale deed, and witnesses confirmed that the contents were read over and explained to all parties. The court held that since the plaintiff allowed the defendant’s name to be included in the sale deed and claimed the entire sale consideration was paid by her, her suit was barred by Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.
The Court also observed that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which allows for condonation of delay, does not apply to suits. Therefore, the petitioner’s plea that she was prevented from filing the suit due to ill health could not be entertained.
High Court’s Judgment:
In Regular Second Appeal No. 520/2020, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the second appeal. It held that the registered sale deed could not be modified merely because the payment allegedly came from the plaintiff’s account, especially since the parties were property brokers. The Court further clarified that Order VII Rule 6 CPC only provides a procedural requirement to plead exemption and does not extend or condone limitation.
Supreme Court Analysis and Decision:
The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings. It held that the initial burden of proof lies on the plaintiff when challenging a registered sale deed. Referring to Prem Singh & Ors. v. Birbal & Ors. [(2006) 5 SCC 353], the Court reiterated that a registered document carries a presumption of validity and the onus to rebut this presumption lies with the person alleging otherwise.
Regarding the plea of fraud, the Bench observed:
“It is not the mere use of general words such as ‘fraud’ that can serve as the foundation for the plea. Such expressions are quite ineffective to give the legal basis in the absence of particular statements of fact which alone can furnish the requisite basis for the action.”
The Court held that the plaint did not satisfy the requirement under Order VII Rule 6 CPC. Although the petitioner relied on Section 17 of the Limitation Act, the Court found that there was no specific pleading that she was kept out of knowledge of her right to sue by reason of the alleged fraud. It observed:
“Under Section 17 of the Limitation Act, the plaintiff should have been kept out of knowledge of his right to sue by means of fraud. We are of the opinion that the alleged fraud relating to the sale transaction itself has nothing to do with the question viz., that the plaintiff had been kept out of knowledge of his right to file a suit for cancellation of the sale deed because of fraud.”
Finding no error in the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition on 2 May 2025.
Citation:
Santosh Devi v. Sunder, SLP (Civil) No.12658 of 2025
