C.S. RAMASWAMYversusV. K. SENTHIL & ORS

                          [2022] 18 S.C.R. 221                           221


                       C.S. RAMASWAMY                                    A
                                  v.
                      V. K. SENTHIL & ORS.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 500 of 2022)
                       SEPTEMBER 30, 2022                                B
         [M.R. SHAH AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
       Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.VII r.11(d) – Rejection of
plaint – Limitation Act, 1963 – s.17 – Respondents filed respective
suits in the year 2015/2016 for cancellation of the sale deeds
                                                                         C
executed in 2005, alleging that the same were obtained by fraud –
Appellant filed applications u/Or.VII r.11(d) for rejection of the
plaints mainly on the ground that the suits were barred by limitation,
dismissed – Revision petitions filed by appellant, dismissed by High
Court – Held: Respective suits were filed after a period of 10 years
from the date of execution of the registered sale deeds – Nothing        D
was mentioned on which date and how the plaintiffs had the
knowledge that the document was obtained by fraud and/or
misrepresentation – There were no further averments and allegations
of how the fraud was committed/played – Mere stating in the plaint
that a fraud has been played is not enough – Allegations of fraud
                                                                         E
must be specifically averred in the plaint, otherwise merely by using
the word “fraud”, by clever drafting the plaintiffs would try to get
the suits within the limitation, which otherwise may be barred by
limitation, as in the present case – Impugned judgment passed by
the High Court and the orders passed by the Trial Court set aside –
Respective suits are rejected being barred by limitation – Fraud.        F
      Allowing the appeals, the Court
      HELD: 1.1 Therefore, even considering the averments and
allegations in the plaints only, it can be seen that even according
to the plaintiffs, the cause of action for the suit arose on
19.09.2005, the date on which the plaintiffs executed the sale           G
deed in favour of the defendant. Most of the cause of actions
alleged are much prior to /prior to the execution of the registered
Sale Deeds. Even the averments and allegations with respect to
knowledge of the plaintiffs averred in paragraph 19 can be said
                                                                         H
                                 221
222            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2022] 18 S.C.R.


A     to be too vague. Nothing has been mentioned on which date and
      how the plaintiffs had the knowledge that the document was
      obtained by fraud and/or misrepresentation. It is averred that
      the alleged fraudulent sale came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs
      only when the plaintiffs visited the suit property. Nothing has
      been mentioned when the plaintiffs visited the suit property. It is
B
      not understandable how on visiting the suit property, the plaintiffs
      could have known the contents of the sale deed and/or the
      knowledge about the alleged fraudulent sale. Even the averments
      and allegations in the plaint with respect to fraud are not supported
      by any further averments and allegations how the fraud has been
C     committed/played. 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.
      Therefore, even if the submission on behalf of the respondents –
D
      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
E     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. [Paras 7.5-7.8][231-E-F;
F
      232-B-H]
            Raghwendra Sharan Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singh
            (Dead) by Legal Representatives (2020) 16 SCC
            601:[2019] 4 SCR 1069 – relied on.
G            1.2 Both the Courts below have materially erred in not
      rejecting the plaints in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule
      11(d) CPC. The 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

H
          C.S. RAMASWAMY v. V. K. SENTHIL & ORS.                           223


filed in the year 2006, in which some of the plaintiffs herein were        A
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, by clever
                                                                           B
drafting, the plaintiffs have tried to bring the suits within the period
of limitation, which otherwise are barred by limitation. Therefore,
considering the decisions of this Court in the case of T.
Arivandandam and other decision of Raghwendra Sharan Singh
and as the respective suits are barred by the law of limitation,
the respective plaints are required to be rejected in exercise of          C
powers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. In view of the above and
for the reasons stated above, all these appeals succeed. The
impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court
rejecting the revision applications and the orders passed by the
learned Trial Court rejecting the respective applications under
                                                                           D
Order VII Rule 11 CPC and refusing to reject the plaints in
exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC are hereby
quashed and set aside. The respective applications filed by the
appellant herein – original defendant to reject the respective
plaints on the ground that the same are barred by the law of
limitation are hereby allowed. The respective plaints are hereby           E
rejected on the ground that the same are barred by limitation.
[Paras 7.9, 8]
      T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC 467 :
      1978 (1) SCR 742 – relied on.
      Sopan Sukhdeo Sable & Ors. v. Assistant Charity                      F
      Commissioner & Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 137:[2004] 1 SCR
      1004; Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal
      Kamat & Ors. (2021) 9 SCC 99; Ram Prakash Gupta
      v. Rajiv Kumar Gupta & Ors. (2007) 10 SCC 59:[2007]
      10 SCR 520; Church of Christ Charitable Trust and                    G
      Educational Charitable Society v. Ponniamman
      Educational Trust (2012) 8 SCC 706:[2012] 6
      SCR 404; Salim D. Agboatwala & Ors. v. Shamalji
      Oddhavji Thakkar & Ors. 2021 SCC Online SC 735
      – referred to.
                                                                           H
224             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 18 S.C.R.


A                              Case Law Reference
      [2019] 4 SCR 1069                  relied on                Para 4.3
      [2004] 1 SCR 1004                  referred to              Para 5.3
      (2021) 9 SCC 99                    referred to              Para 5.3
B     [2007] 10 SCR 520                  referred to              Para 5.3
      [2012] 6 SCR 404                   referred to              Para 5.4
              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 500 of
      2022.
C           From the Judgment and Order dated 28.02.2020 of the High Court
      of Judicature at Madras in C.R.P. No.1931 of 2019.
              With
              Civil Appeal Nos. 504, 505, 506, 502, 501 and 503 of 2022.
D           Kapil Sibal, A. Mariarputham, R. Balasubramanian, Sr. Advs., C.
      Thirumaran, Avneesh Arputham, Ms. Anuradha Arputham, Dr. Ram
      Sankar, R. N. Amarnath, Adit Subramanian Pujari, Praveen Kr. Singh,
      Ankit Sharma, M/s Arputham Aruna and Co., Advs. for the Appellant.
             Sushil Kumar Jain, Sr. Adv., S. Sinnaraj, Ms. E. R. Sumathy, A.
E     Parthasarathi, Ms. Pooja Shree S., Ms. Murugesan M., Ms. Shruti, Advs.
      for the Respondents.
              The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
              M.R. SHAH, J.
             1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common
F
      judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in
      respective C.R.P. Nos. 1931, 1921, 1973, 1968, 1975, 1976 and 1922 of
      2019 by which the High Court has dismissed the said civil revision
      petitions and has confirmed the orders passed by the learned Trial Court
      rejecting the applications filed under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil
G     Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) to reject the respective
      plaints filed by the appellant herein – original defendant, who has preferred
      the present appeals.
            2. That the respondents herein – original plaintiffs have filed the
      respective suits before the learned Trial Court for cancellation of the
H
          C.S. RAMASWAMY v. V. K. SENTHIL & ORS.                             225
                     [M.R. SHAH, J.]

sale deed executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the appellant – original   A
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.
       2.1 Having been served with summons of the suit, the original
defendant – appellant herein filed applications before the learned Trial     B
Court to reject the respective plaints in exercise of powers under Order
VII Rule 11(d) of the 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    C
fraudulent misrepresentation and it was obtained by fraud. According
to 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,         D
they came to know about the same only in April, 2015 and immediately
thereafter they had filed the present suits.
      2.2 The learned Trial Court dismissed the applications under Order
VII Rule 11 CPC by observing that the issue of limitation is a mixed
question of law and facts and therefore, the respective prayers are not      E
required to be rejected at this stage in exercise of powers under Order
VII Rule 11(d) of the C.P.C.
       2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the orders passed by
the learned Trial Court rejecting the applications under Order VII Rule
11(d) CPC and refusing to reject the plaints, the defendant filed the        F
revision petitions before the High court.
      2.4 By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has
dismissed the said civil revision petitions, which has given rise to the
present appeals at the instance of the original defendant.
       3. Shri Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf   G
of the appellant – original defendant and Shri Sushil Kumar Jain, learned
Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of the contesting respondents
– original plaintiffs.

                                                                             H
226             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 18 S.C.R.


A            4. Shri Sibal, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the
      appellant – original defendant has vehemently submitted that in the facts
      and circumstances of the case, both, the learned Trial Court as well as
      the High Court have erred in not allowing the applications under Order
      VII Rule 11(d) CPC and in not rejecting the respective plaints as the
      same were barred by limitation. It is vehemently submitted that in the
B
      present case, the sale deeds, which are now sought to be cancelled
      were executed in the year 2005 and the sale consideration was paid by
      demand drafts and the same were credited into the bank accounts of the
      plaintiffs. It is submitted that the said sale deeds are registered sale
      deeds. It is submitted that the suits have been filed in the year 2016, i.e.,
C     after a lapse of more than 10 years and so the said suits are clearly
      barred by the law of limitation. The learned Trial Court ought to have
      rejected the plaints in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11(d)
      CPC.
             4.1 It is vehemently submitted by Shri Sibal, learned Senior
D     Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant – original defendant that
      even on bare looking on the averments in the plaint and there are vague
      averments with respect to the date of knowledge of the alleged fraud
      and the documents and the respective suits have been filed after a period
      of 10 years from the date of execution, which is a fit case to exercise
      the powers under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. It is vehemently submitted
E     that merely by making some vague averments with respect to fraud, the
      plaintiffs cannot be permitted to bring the suits within the period of
      limitation. It is submitted that there must be specific allegations and
      averments in the suit, how the fraud has been committed. It is submitted
      that mere stating in the plaint that the registered sale deeds were executed
F     by playing the fraud is not sufficient to file the suits after a period of 10
      years.
            4.2 Shri Sibal, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of
      the appellant has vehemently submitted that in the present case, with
      respect to the very sale deeds, earlier a suit was filed by the minor to
G     which some of the original plaintiffs were also parties and the said suits
      came to be dismissed in the year 2014. It is submitted that immediately
      thereafter the present suits were filed in the year 2015/2016. It is
      submitted that therefore, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs were not
      having the knowledge of the nature of the respective sale deeds and/or
      the contents of the sale deeds.
H
          C.S. RAMASWAMY v. V. K. SENTHIL & ORS.                               227
                     [M.R. SHAH, J.]

       4.3 Making above submissions and relying upon the decision of           A
this Court in the case of Raghwendra Sharan Singh Vs. Ram
Prasanna Singh (Dead) by Legal Representatives, (2020) 16 SCC
601, it is prayed to allow the present revision petitions and consequently
allow the application submitted by the appellant – original defendant and
to reject the respective plaints in exercise of the powers under Order
                                                                               B
VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC.
       5. Present appeals are vehemently opposed by Shri Sushil Kumar
Jain, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents -
original plaintiffs.
       5.1 It is submitted that there is specific cause of action pleaded in   C
the respective plaints and there are allegations of fraud and it is the case
on behalf of the plaintiffs that the sale deeds/documents are the result of
fraud and sham and from the date of knowledge in the year 2015
thereafter immediately the respective suits were filed, it cannot be said
that the respective suits are barred by limitation.
                                                                               D
       5.2 It is submitted that as rightly observed and held by the Trial
Court as well as the High Court that in the facts and circumstances of
the case, the issue with respect to limitation is a mixed question of law
and facts and therefore, such an issue of limitation is required to be
considered at the time of trial, no error has been committed by the learned
Trial Court and/or the High Court in refusing to reject the plaints in         E
exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.
      5.3 It is submitted that as per the settled position of law, while
considering and/or deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11
CPC, only the averments and allegations in the plaint are required to be
considered. Reliance is placed on the decisions of this Court in the case      F
of Sopan Sukhdeo Sable & Ors. Vs. Assistant Charity
Commissioner & Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 137; Srihari Hanumandas
Totala Vs. Hemant Vithal Kamat & Ors., (2021) 9 SCC 99; and
Ram Prakash Gupta Vs. Rajiv Kumar Gupta & Ors., (2007) 10
SCC 59.                                                                        G
       5.4 It is submitted that as held by this Hon’ble Court in the case of
Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable
Society Vs. Ponniamman Educational Trust, (2012) 8 SCC 706,
the cause of action is bundle of facts where all the events are required
to be pleaded. It is submitted that therefore on considering the necessary
                                                                               H
averments in the plaint disclosing the cause of action and considering
228             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2022] 18 S.C.R.


A     the averments and allegations in the entire plaint, it cannot be said that
      the suits are barred by limitation.
             5.5 It is submitted that in the plaint, it is specifically averred that
      the plaintiffs came to know about the contents of the sale deeds only in
      the year 2015 and having come to know in the year 2015 that the Sale
B     Deeds were got executed by the defendant by fraud and misrepresentation
      as the plaintiffs had signed the said documents believing the same as
      Joint Development Agreement and therefore, it cannot be said that the
      suits are clearly barred by the law of limitation.
              5.6 It is submitted that the question of limitation is a mixed question
C     of fact and law. It is submitted that in the present matter, the plaintiffs
      are required to prove during the trial that the facts so alleged in paras 11-
      19, if those facts are established, then the plaintiffs are entitled to benefit
      of Section 17 of the Limitation Act.
             5.7 It is submitted that considering Section 17 of the Limitation
D     Act, the period of limitation shall begin to run only from the date of
      discovery of such fraud. It is submitted that as per the averments and
      allegations in the plaints, the plaintiffs came to know about the fraud in
      the year 2015 and therefore, considering Section 17 of the Limitation
      Act, the suits cannot be said to be barred by limitation. Reliance is
      placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Salim D. Agboatwala
E     & Ors. Vs. Shamalji Oddhavji Thakkar & Ors., 2021 SCC Online
      SC 735.
             5.8 Shri Jain, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the
      respondents - original plaintiffs vehemently submitted that in the present
      case, defendant himself filed the writ petition in the name of the plaintiffs
F     and even in the names of the dead owners, which shows that the plaintiffs
      not only got the sale deeds executed in the name of Joint Venture
      Agreement but even got the blank documents, which were taken and
      used for filing the writ petitions.
            5.9 Making above submissions and relying upon the above
G     decisions, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeals.
             6. Heard the learned Senior Advocates appearing on behalf of
      the respective parties at length.
             7. We have gone through in detail the averments and allegations
      in the plaints.
H
           C.S. RAMASWAMY v. V. K. SENTHIL & ORS.                                     229
                      [M.R. SHAH, J.]

        7.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that by filing the respective   A
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
                                                                                      B
respective plaints in 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 Joint Venture Agreement and the plaintiffs did not go               C
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. It is the case
on behalf of the plaintiffs that in any case, the question of limitation
                                                                                      D
being a mixed question of law and facts, and, therefore, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, the plaints may not be rejected in exercise of
the powers under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. It is the case on behalf of
the plaintiffs that while considering the application under Order VII Rule
11 CPC, the allegations and averments in the plaints are required to be
considered.                                                                           E
       7.2 While considering the issue/question whether the plaints filed
by the plaintiffs are required to be rejected on the ground of limitation in
exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, the cause of action
pleaded in the plaints is required to be referred to, which reads as under:-
         “21.      The cause of action for the suit arose on 19.09.2005 the           F
                   date on which the plaintiffs executed the sale deed in
                   favour of the defendant registered as document No.
                   3555/2005, on 20.09.1983 the date when Government
                   of Tamil Nadu issued Sec. 4 (1) notice of Land
                   Acquisition Act in respect of the plaintiff’s lands, on            G
                   20.09.1983 the date when after Section 4(1) notification
                   the Government of Tamil Nadu a declaration under
                   Section 6 was issued in G.O. No. 1426 by the Housing
                   and Urban Development Department, on subsequent
                   dates when land acquisition proceedings were initiated
                                                                                      H
230   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2022] 18 S.C.R.


A         by the Government of Tamil Nadu filed a writ petition in
          W.P. No. 4079 of 1989 against the plaintiff and other
          land owners, on 07. 07 .1989 the date when the stay
          order in WMP No. 5983 of 1989 was given, on
          07.01.1994 the date when stay order was vacated, on
          01.04.1998 the date when the plaintiffs filed a writ appeal
B
          questioning the said order in W.A. No. 258 of 1994, on
          01.04.1998 the date when High Court quashed the entire
          acquisition proceedings under the old land acquisition
          act, on subsequent dates when the housing board has
          filed SLP (C) No. 13458 to 13462 of 1998 which was
C         subsequently withdrawn with liberty to approach the
          Honorable High Court of Madras by filing the review
          petition, on subsequent date when the housing board
          filed a review petition before the High Court in Review
          No. 68 of 1999 seeking to review the order dated
          01.04.1998 passed in WA No. 258 of 1994 and W.P.
D
          No. 4079 of 1989, on 04.10.2007 the date when the
          review petition was allowed thereby setting aside the
          order dated 01.04.1998, on 05.01.2009 the date when
          the M.P. 1 of 2008 was dismissed by the High Court
          Division Bench, on 09.07.2012 the date when the
E         petitioners in writ petition preferred a SLP (C) No. 15932
          and 15933 of 2020 before Supreme Court and an order
          of status quo was granted and the same is pending on
          23.06.2014 the date when the defendant obtained a
          fraudulent decree by filing a writ petition before High
          Court Madras under new land acquisition act, on
F
          04.04.2015 the date when the plaintiff wrote letter to
          advocate who alleged to have represented on behalf of
          the plaintiff, on 19.04.2015 the date when the plaintiff
          received the reply admitting that plaintiffs and other land
          owners, during the month of November when the
G         plaintiffs came to know about the fraudulent sale and
          on all other subsequent where the suit properties are
          satiated within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court at
          Coimbatore.”


H
          C.S. RAMASWAMY v. V. K. SENTHIL & ORS.                              231
                     [M.R. SHAH, J.]

      7.3 In paragraph 19, the plaintiffs have made averments with            A
respect to the date of knowledge. Paragraph 19 reads as under:-
        “”19.    The plaintiffs humbly submit that the plaintiffs and other
                 land owners have not sold the properties to the defendant
                 at all. They did not receive any consideration from the
                 defendant at all they did not hand over any possession       B
                 also and the alleged fraudulent sale came to the
                 knowledge of the plaintiffs only when the plaintiffs
                 visited the suit properties. Hence, immediately the
                 plaintiffs and other land owners took steps to engage
                 their own advocates and now the plaintiffs and other
                 land owners are being represented by their own counsel       C
                 at Chennai. Hence, the plaintiffs in order to remove the
                 could cover the title of the land have filed the suit to
                 cancel the alleged sale deeds executed by the plaintiffs
                 in favour of the defendant through fraudulent means.”
      7.4 Thereafter, in paragraph 20, it is averred and alleged as under:-   D

        “20.     The plaintiffs humbly submit that the defendant has
                 obtained the sale deed from the plaintiffs by fraudulent
                 means therefore the alleged sale deed executed by
                 plaintiffs in favour of the defendant as document No.
                 3555/2005 dated 19.09.2005 has to be cancelled.”             E

       7.5 Therefore, even considering the averments and allegations in
the plaints only, it can be seen that even according to the plaintiffs, the
cause of action for the suit arose on 19.09.2005, the date on which the
plaintiffs executed the sale deed in favour of the defendant. In paragraph
21, while considering the cause of action, it is further averred that the     F
cause of action has arisen on:-
        (i)      20.09.1983 – when Section 4 Notification was issued
                 by the Government of Tamil Nadu;
        (ii)     when the Writ Petition No. 4079 of 1989 was filed;
                                                                              G
        (iii)    07.07.1989 – the date when the said order in W.M.P.
                 No. 5983 of 1989 was given;
        (iv)     07.01.1994 – the date when the said order was vacated;

                                                                              H
232            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 18 S.C.R.


A             (v)      01.04.1998 – the date when the plaintiffs filed a writ
                       appeal;
              (vi)     01.04.1998- when the High Court quashed the entire
                       acquisition proceedings and on subsequent dates when
                       the Housing Board filed the special leave petitions before
B                      this Court.
            7.6 From the aforesaid, it can be seen that most of the cause of
      actions alleged are much prior to /prior to the execution of the registered
      Sale Deeds.
             7.7 Even the averments and allegations with respect to knowledge
C     of the plaintiffs averred in paragraph 19 can be said to be too vague.
      Nothing has been mentioned on which date and how the plaintiffs had
      the knowledge that the document was obtained by fraud and/or
      misrepresentation. It is averred that the alleged fraudulent sale came to
      the knowledge of the plaintiffs only when the plaintiffs visited the suit
D     property. Nothing has been mentioned when the plaintiffs visited the suit
      property. It is not understandable how on visiting the suit property, the
      plaintiffs could have known the contents of the sale deed and/or the
      knowledge about the alleged fraudulent sale.
             7.8 Even the averments and allegations in the plaint with respect
E     to fraud are not supported by any further averments and allegations how
      the fraud has been committed/played. 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. Therefore, even if the
F     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
G     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. At
      this stage, a recent decision of this Court in the case of Raghwendra
H
          C.S. RAMASWAMY v. V. K. SENTHIL & ORS.                                 233
                     [M.R. SHAH, J.]

Sharan Singh (supra) is required to be referred to. In the said decision,        A
this Court had occasion to consider all earlier decisions on exercise of
powers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, which are considered by this
Court in paragraphs 6.4 to 6.9 as under:-
        “6.4. In T. Arivandandam [T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal,
        (1977) 4 SCC 467], while considering the very same provision             B
        i.e. Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and the decree of the trial court in
        considering such application, this Court in para 5 has observed
        and held as under: (SCC p. 470)
                “5. We have not the slightest hesitation in condemning
                the petitioner for the gross abuse of the process of the         C
                court repeatedly and unrepentantly resorted to. From
                the statement of the facts found in the judgment of the
                High Court, it is perfectly plain that the suit now pending
                before the First Munsif’s Court, Bangalore, is a flagrant
                misuse of the mercies of the law in receiving plaints.
                The learned Munsif must remember that if on a                    D
                meaningful — not formal — reading of the plaint it is
                manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not
                disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his
                power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC taking care to see
                that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if          E
                clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of
                action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining
                the party searchingly under Order 10 CPC. An activist
                Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits.”
        6.5. In Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational                  F
        Charitable Society [Church of Christ Charitable Trust &
        Educational Charitable Society v. Ponniamman Educational
        Trust, (2012) 8 SCC 706], this Court in para 13 has observed
        and held as under: (SCC p. 715)
                “13. While scrutinising the plaint averments, it is the          G
                bounden duty of the trial court to ascertain the materials
                for cause of action. The cause of action is a bundle of
                facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives
                the plaintiff the right to relief against the defendant. Every
                fact which is necessary for the plaintiff to prove to enable
                                                                                 H
234    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2022] 18 S.C.R.


A             him to get a decree should be set out in clear terms. It is
              worthwhile to find out the meaning of the words “cause
              of action”. A cause of action must include some act
              done by the defendant since in the absence of such an
              act no cause of action can possibly accrue.”
B     6.6. In ABC Laminart (P) Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies [(1989) 2 SCC
      163], this Court explained the meaning of “cause of action” as
      follows: (SCC p. 170, para 12)
              “12. A cause of action means every fact, which if
              traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove
C             in order to support his right to a judgment of the court.
              In other words, it is a bundle of facts which taken with
              the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff a right to
              relief against the defendant. It must include some act
              done by the defendant since in the absence of such an
              act no cause of action can possibly accrue. It is not
D             limited to the actual infringement of the right sued on
              but includes all the material facts on which it is founded.
              It does not comprise evidence necessary to prove such
              facts, but every fact necessary for the plaintiff to prove
              to enable him to obtain a decree. Everything which if
E             not proved would give the defendant a right to immediate
              judgment must be part of the cause of action. But it has
              no relation whatever to the defence which may be set
              up by the defendant nor does it depend upon the
              character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff.”

F     6.7. In Sopan Sukhdeo Sable [Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Charity
      Commr., (2004) 3 SCC 137] in paras 11 and 12, this Court has
      observed as under: (SCC p. 146)
              “11. In ITC Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate
              Tribunal [ITC Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate
G             Tribunal, (1998) 2 SCC 70] it was held that the basic
              question to be decided while dealing with an application
              filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code is whether a
              real cause of action has been set out in the plaint or
              something purely illusory has been stated with a view to
              get out of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code.
H
 C.S. RAMASWAMY v. V. K. SENTHIL & ORS.                              235
            [M.R. SHAH, J.]

       12. The trial court must remember that if on a meaningful     A
       and not formal reading of the plaint it is manifestly
       vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a
       clear right to sue, it should exercise the power under
       Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code taking care to see that the
       ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. If clever drafting
                                                                     B
       has created the illusion of a cause of action, it has to be
       nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the
       party searchingly under Order 10 of the Code. (See T.
       Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal [(1977) 4 SCC 467].)”
6.8. In Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy [Madanuri Sri
Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal, (2017) 13 SCC 174], this          C
Court has observed and held as under: (SCC pp. 178-79, para
7)
       “7. The plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 if
       conditions enumerated in the said provision are fulfilled.
       It is needless to observe that the power under Order 7        D
       Rule 11 CPC can be exercised by the court at any stage
       of the suit. The relevant facts which need to be looked
       into for deciding the application are the averments of
       the plaint only. If on an entire and meaningful reading
       of the plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly        E
       vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing
       any right to sue, the court should exercise power under
       Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Since the power conferred on
       the court to terminate civil action at the threshold is
       drastic, the conditions enumerated under Order 7 Rule
       11 CPC to the exercise of power of rejection of plaint        F
       have to be strictly adhered to. The averments of the
       plaint have to be read as a whole to find out whether
       the averments disclose a cause of action or whether
       the suit is barred by any law. It is needless to observe
       that the question as to whether the suit is barred by any     G
       law, would always depend upon the facts and
       circumstances of each case. The averments in the
       written statement as well as the contentions of the
       defendant are wholly immaterial while considering the
       prayer of the defendant for rejection of the plaint. Even
                                                                     H
236             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2022] 18 S.C.R.


A                       when the allegations made in the plaint are taken to be
                        correct as a whole on their face value, if they show that
                        the suit is barred by any law, or do not disclose cause of
                        action, the application for rejection of plaint can be
                        entertained and the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC
                        can be exercised. If clever drafting of the plaint has
B
                        created the illusion of a cause of action, the court will
                        nip it in the bud at the earliest so that bogus litigation
                        will end at the earlier stage.”
               6.9. In Ram Singh [Ram Singh v. Gram Panchayat Mehal Kalan,
               (1986) 4 SCC 364], this Court has observed and held that when
C              the suit is barred by any law, the plaintiff cannot be allowed to
               circumvent that provision by means of clever drafting so as to
               avoid mention of those circumstances, by which the suit is barred
               by law of limitation.”
             7.9 Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid
D     decisions on exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to the
      facts of the case on hand and the averments in the plaints, we are of the
      opinion that both the Courts below have materially erred in not rejecting
      the plaints in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. The
      respective suits have been filed after a period of 10 years from the date
E     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
F     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.
      Therefore, considering the decisions of this Court in the case of T.
      Arivandandam (supra) and other decision of Raghwendra Sharan
G     Singh (supra), and as the respective suits are barred by the law of
      limitation, the respective plaints are required to be rejected in exercise
      of powers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
            8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all these
      appeals succeed. The impugned common judgment and order passed
H
           C.S. RAMASWAMY v. V. K. SENTHIL & ORS.                               237
                      [M.R. SHAH, J.]

by the High Court rejecting the revision applications and the orders passed     A
by the learned Trial Court rejecting the respective applications under
Order VII Rule 11 CPC and refusing to reject the plaints in exercise of
powers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC are hereby quashed and set aside.
The respective applications filed by the appellant herein – original
defendant to reject the respective plaints on the ground that the same
                                                                                B
are barred by the law of limitation are hereby allowed. The respective
plaints are hereby rejected on the ground that the same are barred by
limitation.
      Present appeals are accordingly allowed. However, in the facts
and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
                                                                                C

Divya Pandey and Anurag Bhaskar                              Appeals allowed.
(Assisted by : Adnan Khan, LCRA)


                                                                                D




                                                                                E




                                                                                F




                                                                                G




                                                                                H