# Ram Bhool Yadav & Ors v. Gyan Kunj Construction Pvt. Ltd. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 5 ILRA 1372
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-05-30
- **Bench:** Pramod Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-bhool-yadav-ors-v-gyan-kunj-construction-pvt-ltd-ors-43752
- **Pages:** 5

## Text

1372 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
not the question of law, but are questions of fact that could be decided on basis of evidences, as had
been done by the lower court. The impugned judgment in present case is based on appreciation of
all the available evidences, and findings are apparently acceptable. Such findings cannot be
interfered in second appeal.

18. On examination of the reasoning recorded by the learned first appellate court in first
appeal, I am of the view that judgment in civil appeal was well reasoned, and was based on proper
appreciation of entire evidences on record. No perversity or infirmity is found in finding re corded
by the first appellate court to warrant interference through this appeal. No substantial question of
law was involved before this Court. None of the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant
can be sustained.

19. In view of the above, this appeal is dismissed.
----------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.05.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Second Appeal No.- 572 Of 2016

Ram Bhool Yadav & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Gyan Kunj Construction Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Respondents

Second Appeal - Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Rejection of plaint - Limitation - Scope.
While considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court has to examine only the averments
made in the plaint as a whole and not dissect isolated sentences. If, on a meaningful reading of the plaint, the
cause of action appears to be a bundle of facts requiring evidence, the plaint cannot be rejected at the
threshold on the ground of limitation.

Limitation - Article 58 of Limitation Act, 1963 - "First accrual of right to sue".
Though limitation for a suit seeking declaration and cancellation/rectification of a document is three years
from the date when the right to sue first accrues, the determination of such date depends upon the facts
pleaded. Where the plaint discloses that the plaintiff came to know about the alleged error or illegality in the
document subsequently, the question as to when the right to sue first accrued becomes a mixed question of
law and fact, which cannot be decided without evidence.

Cause of Action - Interpretation of pleadings.
Cause of action is a bundle of essential facts which must be read holistically from the plaint. Mere mention of
an earlier date in the plaint does not conclusively determine limitation if, on a cumulative reading of the
pleadings, subsequent discovery of facts giving rise to the cause of action is pleaded.

Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - No substantial question of law.
5 All. Ram Bhool Yadav & Ors. Vs Gyan Kunj Construction Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

1373
Where the first appellate court has rightly held that the issue of limitation requires evidence and cannot be
decided as a preliminary issue under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, such finding does not give rise to any substantial
question of law warranting interference in second appeal.

Held:
The order of the first appellate court remanding the matter for decision on merits is justified. The question of
limitation shall be decided by the trial court on the basis of evidence, uninfluenced by observations of the
appellate courts.

Second appeal dismissed.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.)

(1) Heard learned counsel for the appellants on point of admission of second appeal and
perused the records.

(2) Original Suit No. 52/2014, Gyan Kunj Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kallu and others, was
filed for the relief of declaration and cancellation of deed, which is mentioned in paragraph 23 of
the plaint. The description of cause of action for the suit is mentioned in paras 17 and 21 of the
plaint. Paragraphs 17, 21 and 23 of the plaint are reproduced as under:-

17- यह तक प्रतिवादीगर् संख्या-1 से 4 के तपिा श्री जस्सी द्वारा बैनामा तदनांक 08-12-2005 द्वारा जो भूतम वादी कम्पनी को
तवक्रय की गई िी, वह खसरा संख्या 2442 तस्िि ग्राम शाहपुर बम्बेटा की िी। उक्त बैनामे में टाइतपंग की त्रुतट का ज्ञान पहली बार वादी कम्पनी को
तदनांक 10-01-2014 को हुआ। इससे पूवा उक्त त्रुतट का वादी कम्पनी को कोई ज्ञान नहीं िा।

21- यह तक वादी को वाद का कारर् तदनांक 08-12-2005 को तनष्पातदि बैनामा से, वादी द्वारा प्राप्त कब्जा खसरा संख्या-
2442, तदनांक 22-10-2012 को तनष्पातदि बैनामा द्वारा प्रतिवादी संख्या-1 से 4 द्वारा प्रतिवादीगर् संख्या-5 से 8 के पक्ष में, तदनांक 05-012014 को धमकी देने, तदनांक 10-01-2014 को प्रमातर्ि प्रतितलतप बैनामा तदनांक 22-10-2012 प्राप्त होने ििा पहली बार लेखकीय त्रुतट का
पिा चलने से, बैनामा तदनांक 08-12-2005 में तदनांक 30-01-2014 को सुधार से इन्कार तकये जाने से उत्पन्न हुआ। अिः वाद ग्राम शाहपुर
बम्बेटा, परगना डासना, िहसील व तजला गातजयाबाद में तस्िि संपतत्त से संबंतधि है ििा माननीय न्यायालय को वाद सुनने एवं तनर्ाय करने का अतधकार
प्राप्त है।

23- यह तक वादी तनम्न प्रािानाएाँ करिा है-

v& यह तक न्यायालय की तडक्री द्वारा प्रतिवादीगर् संख्या-1 से 4 को आदेतशि तकया जाये तक वे अपने तपिा श्री जस्सी द्वारा वादी
कम्पनी के तहि में तनष्पातदि बैनामा तदनांक 08-12-2005, जो सब-रतजस्रार कायाालय, प्रिम गातजयाबाद में बही संख्या-1, तजलद संख्या-6332 के
पृष्ठ संख्या 341 से 400 पर क्रमांक 8161 पर तदनांक 08-12-2005 को पंजीकृि है, के क्रम में शुतिपत्र वादी कम्पनी के पक्ष में तनष्पातदि करें
ििा उक्त बैनामे में लेखकीय त्रुतट से तलखे गये खसरा संख्या 2242 के स्िान पर खसरा संख्या 2442 का शुतिकरर् न्यायालय द्वारा तनतिि अवतध में
तनष्पातदि कर पंजीकृि कराया जाये।

अथवा
1374 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

यह तक न्यायालय की घोषर्ात्मक तडक्री द्वारा यह घोषर्ा की जाये तक प्रतिवादीगर् संख्या-1 से 4 के तपिा द्वारा बैनामा तदनांक
08-12-2005 वादी कम्पनी के पक्ष में तनष्पातदि तकया गया, जो सब-रतजस्रार कायाालय, प्रिम गातजयाबाद में बही संख्या-1, तजलद संख्या-6332
के पृष्ठ संख्या 341 से 400 पर क्रमांक 8161 पर तदनांक 08-12-2005 को पंजीकृि है, द्वारा खसरा संख्या 2442 रकबा 0-5060 हे०, ग्राम
शाहपुर बम्बेटा, परगना डासना, िहसील व तजला गातजयाबाद की भूतम तवक्रय की गई है ििा उक्त बैनामे में जो खसरा संख्या 2242 तलखा गया है, वह
मात्र लेखकीय त्रुतट है और वादी को खसरा संख्या 2442 की भूतम उक्त बैनामे से तवक्रय की गई है।

c& यह तक न्यायालय की तनरस्िीकरर् की तडक्री द्वारा बैनामा तदनांक 22-10-2012, जो सब-रतजस्रार कायाालय, प्रिम
गातजयाबाद में बही संख्या-1, तजलद संख्या-10407 के पृष्ठ संख्या 123 से 230 पर क्रमांक 9650 पर तदनांक 22-10-2012 को पंजीकृि है,
को तनरस्ि तकया जाये ििा उसकी सूचना सब-रतजस्रार कायाालय, प्रिम गातजयाबाद को भेजी जाये।

यह तक न्यायालय की स्िायी तनषेधाज्ञा की तडक्री द्वारा प्रतिवादीगर्, उनके अतधकृि प्रतितनतध एवं कमाचाररयों को भूतम खसरा
संख्या-2442 रकबा 0-5060 हे०, ग्राम शाहपुर बम्बेटा, परगना डासना, िहसील व तजला गातजयाबाद के तकसी भी भाग पर कब्जा करने, वादी के
तनमाार् को िोड़ने, उक्त भूतम को तवक्रय करने, आड़, बय, दान करने अिवा अन्य तकसी प्रकार से वादी के शांतिपूर्ा कब्जे या उपयोग में बाधा उत्पन्न करने
से सदा के तलए तनषेध तकया जाये।

n& यह तक वाद व्यय वादी को प्रतिवादीगर् से तदलाया जाये।

j& यह तक अन्य प्रतिकार जो तहिकर वादी हो, उसे भी वादी को प्रतिवादीगर् से तदलाया जाये।

(3) In original suit, defendants moved application 79-C2 under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC
read with Section 151 CPC. In this application, defendants mentioned that first cause of action
arose on 2.8.2005 when sale deed in question was executed in favour of plaintiff, therefore, present
Original Suit No. 52/2014 instituted after about 9 years of arising of said cause of action is barred
by limitation, because limitation for the relief sought is only three years. On these grounds, it is
stated that plaint be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC.

(4) After inviting objection and affording opportunity of hearing to parties, the Civil Judge
(Junior Division), Ghaziabad had allowed said application of defendants and rejected the plaint
under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC by its order dated 28.8.2015.

(5) Against the order dated 28.8.2015 of the trial court, Civil Appeal No. 101/2015, Gyan
Kunj Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kallu Singh & others, was preferred by plaintiff of the original suit.
This appeal was heard and allowed by the judgment dated 30.3.2016 of Additional District Judge,
Court No.-5, Ghaziabad, and the matter was remanded to trial court for disposal of original suit in
accordance with law. In this judgment, lower appellate court had framed point of determination and
decided it in favour of plaintiff with its own conclusion that plaint is not barred by law and suit is
not barred by law of limitation.

(6) Aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 30.3.2016 of the first appellate court,
present Second Appeal has been preferred by defendants of the original suit.
5 All. Ram Bhool Yadav & Ors. Vs Gyan Kunj Construction Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

1375
(7) Learned counsel for the appellant contended that limitation of any suit runs from the
accrual of first cause of action, and in paragraph 21 of the plaint relating to cause of action, it is
mentioned that first cause of action arose on 2.8.2005; therefore it is immaterial as to when
subsequent cause of actions arose and limitation had started running from accrual of first cause of
action on 2.8.2005. On these grounds, he contended that since limitation of relief sought in plaint if
only three years and suit has been filed in year 2014 much beyond start of limitation on 2.8.2005,
so it is barred by law of limitation and trial court's finding was correct that on the basis of plaint
averment, the plaint should have been rejected. He contended that these points were not properly
appreciated by first appellate court. He further cited Khatri Hotels Private Limited and Anr. Vs.
Union of India and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 3590, in which Apex Court has held as under:-

"27. While enacting Article 58 of the 1963 Act, the legislature has designedly made
a departure from the language of Article 120 of the 1908 Act. The word 'first' has been used
between the words 'sue' and 'accrued'. This would mean that if a suit is based on multiple causes of
action, the period of limitation will begin to run from the date when the right to sue first accrues.
To put it differently, successive violation of the right will not give rise to fresh cause and the suit
will be liable to be dismissed if it is beyond the period of limitation counted from the day when the
right to sue first accrued."

(8) On the basis of these arguments, he reiterated that the judgment of trial court was
erroneous, therefore appeal should be admitted for being allowed.

(9) This legal position is admitted for the relief sought in plaint that limitation is three years
from the time of accrual of first cause of action. Section 9 of the Limitation act 1963 reads that
where once time has begun to run, no subsequent disability or inability to institute a suit or make an
application stops it. It is also held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Khatri Hotels (supra) that cause of
action for assessing the period of limitation will begun to run from the date when right to sue when
first cause of action accrued.

(10) In light of above mentioned legal provisions, a perusal of plaint reveals that admittedly
plaintiff had purchased the property by registered sale deed dated 8.12.2005, which his basis of his
title and claim. But the suit is mainly for the rectification of that sale-deed. A perusal of paragraphs
17 and 21 relating to cause of action, although although apparently show that cause of action for
the relief claimed accrued to plaintiff on different dates right from 8.12.2005, 10.1.2014 and
30.1.2014, but the full reading of these paragraphs and plaint averments makes it explicitly clear
that plaintiff's case is that although he had purchased the property in question on 8.1.2014 relating
to Khasra no. 2442, but for the first time he came to know about the typing error in sale-deed dated
8.12.2005 on 10.1.2014 and, thereafter again cause of action arose on 30.1.2014. The cause of
action involves a bundle of facts that reflect the intention of the plaint averment. For determining
the cause of action the contents of pleadings, facts and circumstances has to be understood, instead
of mere words only. In this matter, although in paragraph 21 of the plaint, it is mentioned that cause
of action arose on 8.12.2005 but from total reading of said sentence it is found that cause of action
1376 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
for the suit arose to plaintiff on 22.10.2012, 10.1.2014 and 30.1.2014, then original suit was
instituted on 4.2.2014 for above mentioned relief.

(11) On the basis of above discussion, this finding of lower appellate court is found correct
that this point relating to limitation cannot be decided on this preliminary stage but can be decided
on the basis of adduced evidences.

(12) No other point of law or substantial question of law arises in this matter. None of the
contentions of learned counsel for the appellant are found acceptable.

(13) In view of the above, this second appeal is dismissed, but for removal of any doubts it
is made clear that trial court shall decide the suit in accordance with law giving its finding on each
and every point including on point of limitation afresh without being influenced by any order of
first appellate court or this Court.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.05.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Second Appeal No.- 817 Of 1998

Sobaran Singh ...Appellant
Versus
Raghubir Singh & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for Appellant:
B.P.Agarwal, Beni Prasad, J.H. Khan, Pankaj Bharti, S.K. Singh, W.H. Khan

Counsel for Respondents:
B.D.Mandhyan, S.C.Mandhyan, Satish Mandhyan.

Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 10 & 20 (as applicable prior to 2018 amendment) - Specific
performance - Discretionary relief - Readiness and willingness - Alternative relief - Refund of
earnest money - Enhancement on equitable considerations - Conditional decree.

Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 16.06.1975 was decreed by Trial Court. First
appellate court set aside decree and granted alternative relief of refund of advance consideration of
Rs.5,000/- with interest, holding that plaintiff failed to prove readiness and financial capacity to pay balance
consideration. Second appeal preferred by plaintiff.

Held, jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act to grant or refuse specific performance is
discretionary but such discretion must be exercised on sound judicial principles and on the basis of evidence
on record.