Suit for cancellation of sale deed and partition - male members of HUF sold land by way of registered sale deed in 1980 - After 35 years of such sale, when plaintiffs i.e., married daughters - Rejection of plaint was proper.

Citation 

AIROnline 2022 GUJ 3270

Gujarat High Court

MS . S. G. GOKANI , J. and HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK , J.

R/First Appeal No. - 3386 of 2017 D/- 13 - 7 - 2022

Jyotsnaben Govindbhai Patel v. Ashokbhai Govindbhai Patel (Dead) By Lrs

(A)Civil P.C. (5 of 1908), O.7 R.11(d) - Limitation Act (36 of 1963), Sch.1 Art.59 - Rejection of plaint - On ground of barred by limitation - Validity - Suit for mandatory permanent injunction, cancellation of sale deed and partition - Plaintiffs and defendants were legal heirs of original

owner of land - Plaintiffs claimed that defendants by pressurising and administering threat their father i.e., owner of land, wrongfully sold land by way of sale deed in 1980 which got registered

in name of purchaser in 1981 - Suit challenging sale deed was required to be preferred within three years and had been preferred after 35 years - Claim for relief of partition was required to be filed within 10 years was also preferred after 25 years of such sale deed - Rejection of plaint

by holding same as barred by law of limitation was proper. (Para 22.2) 

(B)Civil P.C. (5 of 1908), O.7 R.11(d) - Rejection of plaint - Vague cause of action - Validity - Suit for mandatory permanent injunction, cancellation of sale deed and partition - Plaintiffs and defendants were legal heirs of original owner of land - Plaintiffs claimed that by inducing

their father defendants i.e., male members of HUF who were taking care of property sold land by way of registered sale deed in 1980 - After 35 years of such sale, when plaintiffs i.e., married daughters found some unknown persons occupying land which was conveyed to them - Plea

of plaintiffs that only after verification from Govt Record, plaintiffs came to know that they were defrauded by brothers and after asking for their shares and partition defendants denied same, thus cause of action had arisen was absolutely vague and unclear - There was an artificial

manner in which attempt was made to bring suit by creating cause of action where in fact, there existed none - Rejection of plaint was proper. (Paras 23 , 23.1)