RAGHWENDRA SHARAN SINGHversusRAM PRASANNA SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS

                            [2019] 4 S.C.R. 1069                             1069


                 RAGHWENDRA SHARAN SINGH                                     A
                                    v.
              RAM PRASANNA SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS
                    (Civil Appeal No.2960 of 2019)
                           MARCH 13, 2019                                    B
         [L. NAGESWARA RAO AND M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
       Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.7, r.11 – Father of the
appellant (original plaintiff) and his brother jointly purchased the
land in question and executed registered gift deed dtd. 06.03.1981
                                                                             C
in favour of the appellant – Appellant instituted partition suit in
2001 against his brothers and others for partition of the joint Hindu
family properties – Original plaintiff was joined as defendant no.10
in the 2001 suit – Original plaintiff filed Title Suit in 2003 against
the appellant inter alia for declaration that the gift deed executed in
favour of the appellant is sham – Appellant filed application u/Or.7         D
r.11 for rejection of the plaint inter alia on the ground that the suit is
barred by limitation – Rejected – Appellant filed revision application
before the High Court – Dismissed – On appeal, held: It is not
disputed that the gift deed, a registered gift deed was executed by
the original plaintiff himself along with his brother – Till 2003, for
                                                                             E
approximately 22 years, neither the plaintiff nor his brother (who
died on 15.12.2002) during his lifetime claimed at any point of time
that the gift deed was showy deed of gift – It is the appellant who
instituted the partition suit in the year 2001 against his brothers to
which even the plaintiff was a party as defendant no.10 – Summon
and the copy of the plaint in the said suit was served upon the              F
plaintiff in 2001 itself – Despite the same, he instituted the present
suit in the year 2003 – By clever drafting, the plaintiff tried to bring
the suit within the period of limitation which, otherwise, was barred
by limitation – Plaintiff never prayed to set aside the gift deed –
Such a prayer was not asked cleverly – If such prayer would have
                                                                             G
been asked, in that case, the suit can be said to be clearly barred
by limitation considering Art.59, Limitation Act and, therefore, only
a declaration was sought to get out of the provisions of the Limitation
Act – Judgment passed by the High Court and the trial Court set
aside – Application by the appellant u/Or.7 r.11 of the CPC to
reject the plaint, allowed – Limitation Act, 1963 – Art.59.                  H
                                   1069
1070            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2019] 4 S.C.R.


 A           Allowing the appeal, the Court
             HELD: 1.1 The plaintiff has specifically admitted that the
       plaintiff and his brother executed the gift deed on 06.03.1981. It
       is admitted that the gift deed is a registered gift deed. It also
       emerges from the plaint that till 2003, neither the plaintiff nor his
 B     brother (during his lifetime) challenged the gift deed dated
       06.03.1981 nor, at any point of time, claimed that the gift deed
       dated 06.03.1981 was a showy deed of gift. In fact, it is the
       defendant-appellant herein who instituted the suit in the year 2001
       against his brothers to which even the plaintiff was a party as
       defendant No. 10 and that was a partition suit filed by the appellant
 C     herein-original defendant. It appears that the summon and the
       copy of the plaint – T.S. (Partition) Suit No. 203 of 2001 – was
       served upon the plaintiff in the year 2001 itself. Still, the plaintiff
       averred in the plaint that it came to the knowledge of the plaintiff
       with respect to the gift deed on 10.04.2003. Thus, it is born out
 D     from the averments in the plaint that, till 2003, the plaintiff never
       disputed the gift deed and/or never claimed that the gift deed
       dated 06.03.1981 was a showy deed of gift. [Para 6.1] [1077-G-H;
       1078-A-C]
              1.2 Both the Courts below have materially erred in not
 E     rejecting the plaint in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11
       of the CPC. It is required to be noted that it is not in dispute that
       the gift deed was executed by the original plaintiff himself along
       with his brother. The deed of gift was a registered gift deed.
       The execution of the gift deed is not disputed by the plaintiff. It
       is the case of the plaintiff that the gift deed was a showy deed of
 F     gift and therefore the same is not binding on him. For
       approximately 22 years, neither the plaintiff nor his brother (who
       died on 15.12.2002) claimed at any point of time that the gift deed
       was showy deed of gift. One of the executants of the gift deed –
       brother of the plaintiff during his lifetime never claimed that the
 G     gift deed was a showy deed of gift. The summon of the suit filed
       by the defendant being T.S. (Partition) Suit No. 203 of 2001 was
       served upon the defendant No.10-plaintiff herein in the year 2001
       itself. Despite the same, he instituted the present suit in the
       year 2003. Even from the averments in the plaint, it appears that
       during these 22 years i.e. the period from 1981 till 2001/2003,
 H
   RAGHWENDRA SHARAN SINGH v. RAM PRASANNA                            1071
             SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS

the suit property was mortgaged by the appellant herein-original      A
defendant and the mortgage deed was executed by the defendant.
By clever drafting the plaintiff has tried to bring the suit within
the period of limitation which, otherwise, is barred by law of
limitation. [Para 7] [1081-D-H; 1082-A]
       1.3 The plaintiff never prayed for any declaration to set      B
aside the gift deed. Such a prayer is not asked cleverly. If such
a prayer would have been asked, in that case, the suit can be said
to be clearly barred by limitation considering Article 59 of the
Limitation Act and, therefore, only a declaration is sought to get
out of the provisions of the Limitation Act, more particularly,
Article 59 of the Limitation Act. The aforesaid aspect has also       C
not been considered by the High Court as well as the learned
trial Court. Both the High Court as well as the learned trial Court
erred in not exercising the powers under Order 7 Rule 11 of the
CPC and in not rejecting the plaint in exercise of powers under
Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. The impugned judgment and order           D
passed by the High Court as well as the trial Court are quashed
and set aside. Consequently, the application submitted by the
appellant herein-original defendant to reject the plaint under
Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC is hereby allowed and the plaint,
being Title Suit No. 19 of 2003 is hereby rejected.
[Paras 7.1, 9] [1082-B-D, G-H; 1083-A]                                E

      T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC
      467 : [1978] 1 SCR 742 ; Ram Singh v. Gram Panchayat
      Mehal Kalan (1986) 4 SCC 364 ; Madanuri Sri Rama
      Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal (2017) 13 SCC 174 :
      [2017] 5 SCR 294; Church of Christ Charitable Trust             F
      & Educational Charitable Society v. Ponniamman
      Educational Trust (2012) 8 SCC 706 : [2012] 6 SCR
      404; A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies
      (1989) 2 SCC 163 : [1989] 2 SCR 1; Sopan Sukhdeo
      Sable v. Assistant Charity Commissioner (2004) 3 SCC            G
      137 : [2004] 1SCR 1004 ; Sham Lal alias Kuldip v.
      Sanjeev Kumar (2009) 12 SCC 454: [2009] 5 SCR
      1049; N. V. Srinivas Murthy v Mariyamma (dead) by
      proposed LRs AIR 2005 SC 2897 : [2005] 1 Suppl.

                                                                      H
1072            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2019] 4 S.C.R.


 A           SCR 411; Ram Prakash Gupta v. Rajiv Kumar Gupta
             (2007) 10 SCC 59 : [2007] 10 SCR 520 – relied on.
             Bloom Dekor Limited v. Subhash Himatlal Desai (1994)
             6 SCC 322 :[1994] 3 Suppl. SCR 322 – referred to.
                               Case Law Reference
 B
       [1978] 1 SCR 742                 relied on               Para 4.3
       (1986) 4 SCC 364                 relied on               Para 4.3
       [2017] 5 SCR 294                 relied on               Para 4.3
       [2012] 6 SCR 404                 relied on               Para 4.5
 C
       [1989] 2 SCR 1                   relied on               Para 4.5
       [1994] 3 Suppl. SCR 322          referred to             Para 4.5
       [2004] 1 SCR 1004                relied on               Para 4.5
 D     [2009] 5 SCR 1049                relied on               Para 4.5
       [2005] 1 Suppl. SCR 411          relied on               Para 4.5
       [2007] 10 SCR 520                relied on               Para 4.5
             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2960
       of 2019.
 E
             From the Judgment and Order dated 12.03.2013 of the High Court
       of Judicature at Patna in Civil Revision No. 1829 of 2006.
             Lakshmi Raman Singh, Advs. for the Appellants.
            Brajesh Verma, Dinkar Sharma, Shirsh Kumar, E. C. Vidya Sagar,
 F     Upendra Pratap Singh, Ms. Kheyali, D. K. Devesh, Advs. for the
       Respondents.
             The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
             M. R. SHAH, J. 1. Application for substitution is allowed in
 G     terms of the prayer made.
             1.1 Leave granted.
             2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
       and order dated 12.03.2013 passed in Civil Revision No. 1829 of 2006
       by the High Court of Judicature at Patna by which the High Court has
 H     dismissed the said revision petition and has confirmed the order passed
     RAGHWENDRA SHARAN SINGH v. RAM PRASANNA                                    1073
         SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

by the learned Munsif, Danapur dated 28.08.2006 passed in Title Suit            A
No. 19 of 2003 by which the learned trial Court rejected the application
submitted by the original defendant to reject the plaint in exercise of
powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPC’), the original defendant has
preferred the present appeal.
                                                                                B
       3. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:
       That the original plaintiff and his brother Sheo Prasanna Singh
jointly purchased the suit land in question in the year 1965. That the
original plaintiff, who is the father of the appellant herein-original
defendant, and his late brother Sheo Prasanna Singh executed a registered       C
deed of gift in favour of the appellant herein on 06.03.1981 gifting the
suit land and put him in possession thereof. That the appellant herein-
original defendant instituted one T.S. (Partition) Suit No. 203 of 2001
against his brothers and others for partition of the joint Hindu family
properties. That the respondent herein-original plaintiff in the present
suit was also joined as defendant No. 10 in the same suit. It appears that      D
the summon along with a copy of the plaint of the aforesaid partition suit
was allegedly served on the plaintiff-respondent herein on 21.12.2001.
That Sheo Prasanna Singh died on 15.12.2002. That thereafter, the
respondent herein-original plaintiff alone filed T.S. No. 19 of 2003 against
the appellant herein-original defendant in the Court of Munsif, Danapur         E
for a declaration that the deed of gift dated 06.03.1981 executed in favour
of the appellant herein is showy and sham transaction and no title and
possession with respect to the gifted property ever passed to the appellant-
original defendant and hence the same is not binding on him. A prayer
was also made for confirming his possession over the suit property and
in case he is found out of possession, then a decree for recovery of            F
possession be passed.
       3.1 That the appellant herein-original defendant after filing his
written statement, filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 r/w Order
XIV, Rule 2 CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is
clearly barred by law of limitation, as the deed of gift having been executed   G
on 06.03.1981, the suit under Article 59 of the Limitation Act ought to
have been filed within three years of the deed of execution of the gift
deed, whereas the same has been filed after more than 22 years of the
execution of the deed. It was also further averred that the suit is not
                                                                                H
1074             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2019] 4 S.C.R.


 A     maintainable in view of Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act as well
       as Section 47 of the Registration Act.
              3.2 That the Munsif, Danapur rejected the said application vide
       order dated 28.08.2006 on the ground that from the perusal of records
       and other documents, for determining the question of Limitation, oral
 B     evidence are required to be taken into account. Therefore, the question
       is to be adjudicated only after the evidence are led by both the parties.
              3.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by
       the Munsif, Danapur rejecting the Order 7 Rule 11 application, the
       appellant herein-original defendant filed a revision application before the
 C     High Court. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has
       dismissed the revision application and has confirmed the order passed
       by the Munsif, Danapur rejecting the Order 7 Rule 11 application. Hence,
       the present appeal at the instance of the original defendant.
              4. Learned counsel on behalf of the appellant-original defendant
 D     has vehemently submitted that, in the facts and circumstances of the
       case, both the High Court as well as the trial Court have materially erred
       in rejecting the Order 7 Rule 11 application and have materially erred in
       not rejecting the plaint in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d)
       of the CPC.

 E            4.1 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on
       behalf of the appellant-original defendant that the registered gift deed
       was executed by the original plaintiff in the year 1981. At no point of
       time, till the year 2003, the original plaintiff as well as his brother Late
       Sheo Prasanna Singh challenged the registered gift deed dated 06.03.1981.
       It is submitted that therefore the present suit filed by the plaintiff
 F     challenging the registered gift deed was after a period of approximately
       22 years from the date of the execution of the registered gift deed and,
       therefore, the same was clearly barred by law of limitation, more
       particularly, considering Article 59 of the Limitation Act.
              4.2 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on
 G     behalf of the appellant-original defendant that the High Court as well as
       the trial Court ought to have appreciated the fact that by mere clever
       drafting, the plaintiff cannot bring the suit within the period of limitation,
       if otherwise the same is barred by law of limitation. It is submitted that,
       in the present case, as such, the original plaintiff deliberately did not
 H
     RAGHWENDRA SHARAN SINGH v. RAM PRASANNA                                      1075
         SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

specifically pray to set aside the registered gift deed dated 06.03.1981.         A
It is submitted that if the plaintiff would have asked for such a relief, in
that case, the plaintiff was aware that the suit would be dismissed at the
threshold being barred by law of limitation. It is submitted that, therefore,
deliberately the plaintiff specifically did not ask for the relief of quashing
and setting aside the registered gift deed.
                                                                                  B
       4.3 Relying upon the decisions of this Court in the cases of T.
Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC 467; Ram Singh v.
Gram Panchayat Mehal Kalan (1986) 4 SCC 364 and Madanuri Sri
Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal (2017) 13 SCC 174, it is requested
to allow the present appeal and quash and set aside the impugned orders
rejecting the Order 7 Rule 11 application submitted by the defendant.             C

      4.4 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant-original defendant that as held by this Court in
catena of decisions while considering the application under Order 7 Rule
11 of the CPC, only the averments in the plaint are required to be
considered.                                                                       D

        4.5 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant-original defendant that if clever drafting has
created the illusion of a cause of action, as observed by this Court in a
catena of decisions, the Court must nip it in the bud at the first hearing
by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 of the CPC. It is               E
further submitted that, therefore, as observed by this Court in the case
of T. Arivandandam (supra), an activist judge is the answer to
irresponsible law suits. It is submitted that, in the present case, if the
bundle of facts narrated in the plaint and the averments in the plaint, as
a whole, are considered, in that case, the suit is not only barred by law of      F
limitation, but it is a vexatious and meritless suit and, therefore, the plaint
is required to be rejected in exercise of powers under Rule 7 Order 11 of
the CPC. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellant-original defendant has relied upon the decisions
of this Court in T. Arivandandam (supra); Church of Christ Charitable
Trust & Educational Charitable Society v. Ponniamman Educational                  G
Trust (2012) 8 SCC 706; A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies
(1989) 2 SCC 163; Bloom Dekor Limited v. Subhash Himatlal Desai
(1994) 6 SCC 322; Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Assistant Charity
Commissioner (2004) 3 SCC 137; Sham Lal alias Kuldip v. Sanjeev
                                                                                  H
1076             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2019] 4 S.C.R.


 A     Kumar (2009) 12 SCC 454; N. V. Srinivas Murthy v Mariyamma
       (dead) by proposed LRs AIR 2005 SC 2897 and Ram Prakash Gupta
       v. Rajiv Kumar Gupta (2007) 10 SCC 59. Making the above submissions,
       it is prayed to allow the present appeal and quash and set aside the
       impugned order passed by the High Court as well as the trial Court
       rejecting Order 7 Rule 11 application and consequently to allow the said
 B
       application and to reject the plaint in exercise of powers under Order 7
       Rule 11 of the CPC.
             5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original plaintiff-
       respondent has vehemently opposed the present appeal.
 C           5.1 It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel appearing
       on behalf of the original plaintiff that the question of limitation is a mixed
       question of law and facts and for which the evidence is required to be
       led by the parties and therefore both, the High Court as well as the
       learned trial Court, rightly refused to reject the plaint at the threshold
       and in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC.
 D
               5.2 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on
       behalf of the original plaintiff that, while considering the application under
       Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, the averments in the plaint alone are required
       to be considered and not the defence and/or the written statement filed
       by the defendant. It is submitted that, in the present case, it is specifically
 E     averred in the plaint that the plaintiff came to know about the gift deed in
       the year 2001, when the plaintiff instituted T.S. No. 203 of 2001 and
       asserted his right on the basis of the registered gift deed dated 06.03.1981.
       It is submitted that, as so averred in the plaint, till 2001, the defendant did
       not assert his right on the basis of the registered gift deed dated 06.03.1981
 F     and, therefore, as averred in the plaint, the plaintiff came to know about
       the registered gift deed in the year 2001, and when the suit was filed in
       the year 2003, the suit cannot be said to be barred by law of limitation. It
       is submitted that, in any case, the question with respect to the limitation
       can be said to be a mixed question of law and facts, as rightly observed
       by the learned trial Court as well as the High Court, the evidence is
 G     required to be led by both the parties and only thereafter, the issue with
       respect to limitation is required to be considered. It is submitted that,
       therefore, the High Court has rightly refused to reject the plaint under
       Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC.

 H
      RAGHWENDRA SHARAN SINGH v. RAM PRASANNA                                      1077
          SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

      5.3 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the                A
present appeal.
       6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective
parties at length. We have perused the impugned judgment and order
of the High Court as well as the order of the trial Court, dismissing the
application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC and refusing to reject the            B
plaint in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. We
have also considered the averments in the plaint.
        6.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that the plaintiff has
instituted the suit against the defendant for a declaration that the defendant
has acquired no title and possession on the basis of the deed of gift dated        C
06.03.1981 and that the plaintiff has got title and possession in the said
property. In the suit, the plaintiff has prayed for the following reliefs:
     “A That on adjudication of the facts stated above, it be declared
       that the defendant acquired no title and possession on the basis
       of the said showy deed of gift dated 06.03.1981 and the plaintiff           D
       has got title and possession in the said property.
     B. That it be declared that the said showy Deed of Gift dated
        06.03.1981 is not binding upon the plaintiff.
     C. That the possession of the plaintiff be continued over the suit-
        property and in case if he is found out of possession, a decree            E
        for recovery of possession be passed in favour of the plaintiff.
     D. That the defendant be restrained by an order of ad-interim
        injunction from transferring or encumbering or interfering with
        the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land, during the
        pendency of the suit.                                                      F
     E. That the cost of the suit be awarded to the plaintiff and against
        the defendant.
     F. Any other relief or reliefs which deems fit and proper, be awarded
        to the plaintiff and against the defendant.”
                                                                                   G
       Considering the averments in the plaint, it can be seen that, as
such, the plaintiff has specifically admitted that the plaintiff and his brother
executed the gift deed on 06.03.1981. It is admitted that the gift deed is
a registered gift deed. It also emerges from the plaint that till 2003,

                                                                                   H
1078             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                              [2019] 4 S.C.R.


 A     neither the plaintiff nor his brother (during his lifetime) challenged the
       gift deed dated 06.03.1981 nor, at any point of time, claimed that the gift
       deed dated 06.03.1981 was a showy deed of gift. In fact, it is the
       defendant-appellant herein who instituted the suit in the year 2001 against
       his brothers to which even the plaintiff was a party as defendant No. 10
       and that was a partition suit filed by the appellant herein-original defendant.
 B
       It appears that the summon and the copy of the plaint – T.S. (Partition)
       Suit No. 203 of 2001 – was served upon the plaintiff in the year 2001
       itself. Still, the plaintiff averred in the plaint that it came to the knowledge
       of the plaintiff with respect to the gift deed on 10.04.2003. Thus, it is
       born out from the averments in the plaint that, till 2003, the plaintiff
 C     never disputed the gift deed and/or never claimed that the gift deed
       dated 06.03.1981 was a showy deed of gift. With the aforesaid facts
       and circumstances, the application submitted by the appellant-original
       defendant to reject the plaint in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule
       11 of the CPC is required to be considered.
 D           6.2 While considering the scope and ambit of the application under
       Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, few decisions of this Court on Order 7
       Rule 11 of the CPC are required to be referred to and considered.
               6.3 In the case of T. Arivandandam (supra), while considering
       the very same provision i.e. Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC and the decree
 E     of the trial Court in considering such application, this Court in para 5 has
       observed and held as under:
              “5. We have not the slightest hesitation in condemning the petitioner
              for the gross abuse of the process of the court repeatedly and
              unrepentently resorted to. From the statement of the facts found
 F            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 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
 G            should exercise his power under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC taking
              care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if
              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
 H            irresponsible law suits.....”
     RAGHWENDRA SHARAN SINGH v. RAM PRASANNA                                   1079
         SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

      6.4 In the case of Church of Christ Charitable Trust and                 A
Educational Charitable Society (supra), this Court in paras 13 has
observed and held as under:
      “13. While scrutinizing the plaint averments, it is the 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        B
      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 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      C
      accrue.”
      6.5 In A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies, Salem
(supra), this Court explained the meaning of “cause of action” as follows:
      “12. A cause of action means every fact, which if traversed, it          D
      would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove 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 limited to the     E
      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 not proved would give the defendant a right to immediate        F
      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.”
       6.6 In the case of Sopan Sukhdeo Sable (supra) in paras 11 and          G
12, this Court has observed as under:
      “11. In I.T.C. Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate 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
                                                                               H
1080           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2019] 4 S.C.R.


 A          plaint or something purely illusory has been stated with a view to
            get out of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code.
            12. The trial court must remember that if on a meaningful 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
 B          the power under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code taking care to see
            that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. If clever drafting
            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 (supra).”
 C
             6.7 In the case of Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy (supra),
       this Court has observed and held as under:
            “7. The plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 if conditions
            enumerated in the said provision are fulfilled. It is needless to
 D          observe that the power under Order 7 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 vexatious and
            meritless in the sense of not disclosing any right to sue, the court
 E          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 have to be
            strictly adhered to. The averments of the plaint have to be read as
 F          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
            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
 G          considering the prayer of the defendant for rejection of the plaint.
            Even 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

 H
     RAGHWENDRA SHARAN SINGH v. RAM PRASANNA                                      1081
         SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

       rejection of plaint can be entertained and the power under Order           A
       7 Rule 11 CPC can be exercised. If clever drafting of the plaint
       has 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.”
       6.8 In the case of Ram Singh (supra), this Court has observed              B
and held that when 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. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid              C
decisions on exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC to
the facts of the case in hand and the averments in the plaint, we are of
the opinion that both the Courts below have materially erred in not rejecting
the plaint in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. It is
required to be noted that it is not in dispute that the gift deed was executed
by the original plaintiff himself along with his brother. The deed of gift        D
was a registered gift deed. The execution of the gift deed is not disputed
by the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that the gift deed was a
showy deed of gift and therefore the same is not binding on him. However,
it is required to be noted that for approximately 22 years, neither the
plaintiff nor his brother (who died on 15.12.2002) claimed at any point of        E
time that the gift deed was showy deed of gift. One of the executants of
the gift deed – brother of the plaintiff during his lifetime never claimed
that the gift deed was a showy deed of gift. It was the appellant herein-
original defendant who filed the suit in the year 2001 for partition and the
said suit was filed against his brothers to which the plaintiff was joined
as defendant No. 10. It appears that the summon of the suit filed by the          F
defendant being T.S. (Partition) Suit No. 203 of 2001 was served upon
the defendant No.10-plaintiff herein in the year 2001 itself. Despite the
same, he instituted the present suit in the year 2003. Even from the
averments in the plaint, it appears that during these 22 years i.e. the
period from 1981 till 2001/2003, the suit property was mortgaged by the           G
appellant herein-original defendant and the mortgage deed was executed
by the defendant. Therefore, considering the averments in the plaint
and the bundle of facts stated in the plaint, we are of the opinion that by


                                                                                  H
1082             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                               [2019] 4 S.C.R.


 A     clever drafting the plaintiff has tried to bring the suit within the period of
       limitation which, otherwise, is barred by law of limitation. Therefore,
       considering the decisions of this Court in the case of T. Arivandandam
       (supra) and others, as stated above, and as the suit is clearly barred by
       law of limitation, the plaint is required to be rejected in exercise of powers
       under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC.
 B
              7.1 At this stage, it is required to be noted that, as such, the plaintiff
       has never prayed for any declaration to set aside the gift deed. We are
       of the opinion that such a prayer is not asked cleverly. If such a prayer
       would have been asked, in that case, the suit can be said to be clearly
       barred by limitation considering Article 59 of the Limitation Act and,
 C     therefore, only a declaration is sought to get out of the provisions of the
       Limitation Act, more particularly, Article 59 of the Limitation Act. The
       aforesaid aspect has also not been considered by the High Court as well
       as the learned trial Court.
              8. Now, so far as the application on behalf of the original plaintiff
 D     and even the observations made by the learned trial Court as well as the
       High Court that the question with respect to the limitation is a mixed
       question of law and facts, which can be decided only after the parties
       lead the evidence is concerned, as observed and held by this Court in the
       cases of Sham Lal alias Kuldip (supra); N.V. Srinivas Murthy (supra)
 E     as well as in the case of Ram Prakash Gupta (supra), considering the
       averments in the plaint if it is found that the suit is clearly barred by law
       of limitation, the same can be rejected in exercise of powers under Order
       7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC.
              9. In view of he above and for the reasons stated above, we are
 F     of the opinion that both the High Court as well as the learned trial Court
       have erred in not exercising the powers under Order 7 Rule 11 of the
       CPC and in not rejecting the plaint in exercise of powers under Order 7
       Rule 11 of the CPC. For the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment
       and order passed by the High Court as well as the trial Court cannot be
       sustained and the same deserve to be quashed and set aside.
 G     Consequently, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
       Court dated 12.03.2013 as well as the order passed by the Munsif,
       Danapur rejecting the Order 7 Rule 11 application filed by the original
       defendant are hereby set aside. Consequently, the application submitted

 H
     RAGHWENDRA SHARAN SINGH v. RAM PRASANNA                                   1083
         SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

by the appellant herein-original defendant to reject the plaint under Order    A
7 Rule 11 of the CPC is hereby allowed and the plaint, being Title Suit
No. 19 of 2003 is hereby rejected. The present appeal is allowed
accordingly in terms of the above. No costs.


Divya Pandey                                                 Appeal allowed.   B




                                                                               C




                                                                               D




                                                                               E




                                                                               F




                                                                               G




                                                                               H