# Srivatsa Goswami v. Anant Prasad Singh & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 11 ILRA 151
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-11-18
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 62 of 2024
- **Bench:** Kshitij Shailendra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/srivatsa-goswami-v-anant-prasad-singh-anr-50989
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

(A) Civil Law - Rejection of Plaint on
Grounds of Limitation - Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 - Order VI Rule 4 -
Particulars to be given where necessary,
Order VII Rule 11 - Rejection of Plaint,
Limitation Act, 1963
- Article 58
-
limitation to institute a suit, Section 17 -
Effect of fraud or mistake - Requirement
for disclosure of dates in pleadings
involving
fraud
or
concealment
-
Limitation as a mixed question of fact and
law - when the evidence is yet to be led on
all the disputed questions of fact and law,
question of limitation cannot be said to be
a pure question of law so as to justify
rejection of plaint at its threshold. (Para -
5,6,8,12,13)

Plaintiff sought to declare registered gift deeds
executed in 1968 and 1987 - null, void ab initio,
irrelevant and ineffective - citing fraud and
concealment - Trial court rejected plaint as
time-barred under Order VII Rule 11 CPC -
appellate court treated limitation issue as a
"mixed question of fact and law" - remanded
the matter for trial. (Para - 3,4)

HELD: - Appellate court was justified in leaving
the question of limitation to be decided as a
mixed question of fact and law after leading the
evidence. (Para -13)

Appeal dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

11 All. Srivatsa Goswami Vs. Anant Prasad Singh & Anr.
151
second appeal. The appeal has been filed
on misconceived and baseless grounds.

11. The second appeal is, accordingly,
dismissed.
----------
(2024) 11 ILRA 151
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.11.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 62 of 2024

Srivatsa Goswami ...Appellant
Versus
Anant Prasad Singh & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Tarun Agrawal

Counsel for the Respondents:
Anita Singh, Dinesh Kumar Misra, Ishir
Sripat

(A) Civil Law - Rejection of Plaint on
Grounds of Limitation - Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 - Order VI Rule 4 -
Particulars to be given where necessary,
Order VII Rule 11 - Rejection of Plaint,
Limitation Act, 1963
- Article 58
-
limitation to institute a suit, Section 17 -
Effect of fraud or mistake - Requirement
for disclosure of dates in pleadings
involving
fraud
or
concealment
-
Limitation as a mixed question of fact and
law - when the evidence is yet to be led on
all the disputed questions of fact and law,
question of limitation cannot be said to be
a pure question of law so as to justify
rejection of plaint at its threshold. (Para -
5,6,8,12,13)

Plaintiff sought to declare registered gift deeds
executed in 1968 and 1987 - null, void ab initio,
irrelevant and ineffective - citing fraud and
concealment - Trial court rejected plaint as
time-barred under Order VII Rule 11 CPC -
appellate court treated limitation issue as a
"mixed question of fact and law" - remanded
the matter for trial. (Para - 3,4)

HELD: - Appellate court was justified in leaving
the question of limitation to be decided as a
mixed question of fact and law after leading the
evidence. (Para -13)

Appeal dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Saranpal Kaur Anand Vs Praduman Singh
Chandhok, (2022) 8 S.C.C. 401

2. Smt. Razia Begum Vs D.D.A. & ors., 2014
SCC OnLine Del 4628

3. Dr. Chandra Mohan Singhal & ors. Vs St. of
U.P., 2002 (4) AWC 2686

(Delivered by Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J.)

1. Heard Shri Tarun Agrawal, learned
counsel for the defendant-appellant and
Shri Rahul Sripat, learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Shri Ishir Sripat, learned
counsel for the plaintiff-respondents.

2. The instant appeal has been
converted from "Second Appeal" to "First
Appeal From Order" under the previous
orders of this Court, inasmuch as, the order
impugned is an order of remand passed in
civil appeal.

3. The appellant is defendant in
Original Suit No.83 of 2022 (Anant Prasad
Singh v. Shrivatsa Goswami and others).
The suit was filed claiming a decree for
declaring a registered gift deed dated
25.05.1968 and another gift deed dated
17.10.1987, registered on 15.01.1988 as
null,
void
ab
initio,
irrelevant
and
ineffective, insofar as the plaintiff's rights
152 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
are concerned. In the said suit, an
application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C.
was filed by the defendant-appellant which
was allowed by the trial court on
22.11.2022. Consequently, the plaint was
rejected holding the suit as barred by
limitation by invoking Order VII Rule
11(d) CPC. Against the order of trial court,
Civil Appeal No.67 of 2022 (Anant Prasad
Singh v. Shrivats Goswami and another)
was filed by the plaintiff-respondents
which has been allowed by the order
impugned dated 06.04.2023 and the matter
has been remanded to the trial court to reregister the suit, invite written statement
and other objections from the defendants
on all aspects including limitation, to frame
additional issue on limitation and take a
decision on all the issues after leading
evidence.

4. Assailing the order impugned, Shri
Tarun Agrawal, learned counsel for the
appellant submits that one Girija Devi
executed a gift deed dated 25.05.1968 in
favour of Vishnu Priya who, later on,
executed
another
gift
deed
dated
17.10.1987 registered on 15.01.1988 in
favour of Shri Purushottam Lal Goswami,
i.e. father of the defendant-appellant. He
died on 21.02.2017 and the suit in question
was filed on 07.02.2022. Reading out the
plaint averments especially those contained
in paragraph 21 thereof, it is contended that
the plaintiff deliberately concealed the date
of knowledge of the registered documents
and admitted in the plaint itself that earlier
attempt of getting the name of the
defendant mutated in the revenue records
was made ineffective by the plaintiff. He,
therefore, submits that by concealing the
date
about
knowledge
of
registered
instruments in the entire plaint, the plaintiff
committed
breach
of
the
mandatory
provisions of Order VI Rule 4 CPC,
inasmuch as, the limitation to institute a
suit of this nature would be governed by
Article 58 of Part III of the Limitation Act,
1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of
1963') which prescribes a period of three
years of limitation from the date when the
right to sue first accrues. He submits that
principly the case of the plaintiff defending
rejection of the plaint as barred by
limitation
is
based
upon
subsequent
revealing
of
fraud
or
concealment,
therefore, in view of Section 17(1)(b) of the
Act
of
1963,
knowledge
of
such
concealment of fraud, when read with
Order VII Rule 4 CPC, the plaintiff was
bound to disclose the date of knowledge in
the plaint and, in absence thereof, the plaint
was liable to be rejected. In support of his
submissions, he has placed reliance upon
the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Saranpal Kaur Anand v. Praduman
Singh Chandhok, (2022) 8 S.C.C. 401;
another judgment of Delhi High Court in
Smt. Razia Begum v. Delhi Development
Authority & ors., 2014 SCC OnLine Del
4628 and judgment of this Court in Dr.
Chandra Mohan Singhal and others v.
State of U.P., 2002 (4) AWC 2686.

5. Per contra, Shri Rahul Sripat,
learned Senior Counsel refers to 'paragraph
14' of the plaint and submits that previous
proceedings of mutation were not based
upon registered instruments, declaration
whereabout has been claimed in the suit,
rather the mutation was claimed on the
basis of long possession only and it is, for
the first time, that the plaintiff received a
notice dated 29.12.2021 issued by the
concerned
Municipal
Corporation
whereupon he came to know about the
registered gift deeds. He submits that the
said notice was filed alongwith list of
documents before the trial court and, in the
facts of the case, the appellate court has not
11 All. Srivatsa Goswami Vs. Anant Prasad Singh & Anr.
153
erred in treating the question of limitation
as a "mixed question fact and law" and has
rightly remanded the matter to the trial
court for deciding all the issues including
the issue of limitation.

6. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties, first of all, the Court deals with
the provisions of Order VI Rule 4 C.P.C.
pressed into service. The same reads as
under:-

Order VI Rule 4

"Particulars to be given where
necessary.- In all cases in which the party
pleading relies on any misrepresentation,
fraud, breach of trust, wilful default, or
undue influence, and in other cases in
which particulars may be necessary beyond
such as are exemplified in the forms
aforesaid, particulars (with dates and items
if necessary) shall be stated in the
pleading."

7. Section 17 of the Act of 1963 also
needs reproduction:-

"17. Effect of fraud or mistake.-
(1) Where, in the case of any suit or
application for which a period of limitation
is prescribed by this Act,-

(b). the knowledge of the right or
title on which a suit or application is
founded is concealed by the fraud of any
such person as aforesaid; or"

8. A conjoint reading of both the
aforesaid provisions would show that when
the plea of subsequent acquisition of
knowledge or revealing of concealment or
fraud is taken by the plaintiff so as to bring
his suit within period of limitation, it is
incumbent for him to state in the plaint as
to when he acquired knowledge. Order VI
Rule 4 C.P.C. provides that dates and items
in relation to the plea of misrepresentation,
fraud, breach of trust, wilful default or
undue influence shall be mentioned in the
plaint.

9. The judgment of Saranpal Kaur
Anand (supra), had arisen from rejection of
plaint on the ground of limitation. Though
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred the
matter to the Larger Bench, however, it
appears from 'paragraph 61' of the
judgment that it was on the issue as to
whether the question of limitation can be
decided on the preliminary issue in terms of
Order XIV Rule 2(2) C.P.C. There being
no quarrel with the proposition laid down
in the cited judgment, however, in the
peculiar facts of this case when the plaintiff
has come up with a clear stand that earlier
proceedings of mutation were not based
upon gift deeds and, for the first time, the
plaintiff acquired knowledge about the
rights claimed by the defendant on the basis
of the gift deed(s) pursuant to notice issued
by the Municipal Corporation in the year
2021, such an aspect has a material bearing
on the issue of limitation. Though it is true
that in 'paragraph 14' of the plaint, the date
of acquisition of knowledge about the gift
deed has not been disclosed, however,
receipt of notice issued by Nagar Nigam
concerning
mutation
proceedings
and
words
"conspiracy
etc."
are
clearly
mentioned. Under such circumstances,
even if, a date of receipt of notice has been
missed from being mentioned in the plaint,
the same does not affect the plaintiff's right
to seek amendment in the plaint to that
extent when the notice is already on record.
This Court, further, does not find any
quarrel between the provisions of Order VI
Rule 4 CPC and Order VI Rule 17 CPC and
no such authority has been placed before
the Court which restricts the right of the
plaintiff to subsequently amend his plaint,
154 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
even if, the date about revealing of
concealment or fraud is missed from being
mentioned in the plaint initially filed but
the document is before the Court on the
date of consideration of application under
Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

10. The Delhi High Court in Smt.
Razia Begum (supra), while discussing the
aspect of rejection of plaint under Order
VII Rule 11 CPC, has observed that for the
said purpose, the Court has to look at the
averments made in the plaint by taking the
same as correct on its face value as also the
documents filed in support thereof and at so
many places in the judgment, it has been
emphasized that the entire plaint must be
read as a whole. In the instant case, the
notice dated 29.12.2021 issued by the
concerned
Municipal
Corporation
has
already been brought on record before the
trial court by the plaintiff himself. The
entire plaint, when read as a whole
alongwith the said notice, would give rise
to an arguable issue of limitation vis-a-vis
actual acquisition of knowledge to the
plaintiff about the disputed gift deed(s).
Therefore, the appellant does not get any
advantage from the decision of Smt. Razia
Begum (supra) and, infact, the same would
apply against him in the facts of the present
case.

11. The judgment in Dr. Chandra
Mohan Singhal and others (supra) arises
out of a case where the particulars regarding
alleged fraud were not disclosed in the plaint
and this Court, in paragraph 25 of the report,
observed that on perusal of the plaint of the
suit, no details of fraud were found to be
given nor was it mentioned as to who had
committed the fraud. The Court, accordingly,
observed that the plaint was bad under Order
VI Rule 4 CPC and, hence, was liable to be
rejected. The facts of the instant case are,
however, different and the only issue
involved before this Court is as to whether on
the statement of facts contained by reading
the entire plaint read with the notice dated
29.12.2021, it can be said at this stage that the
provisions of Order VI Rule 4 CPC would
apply in strict sense so as to reject the plaint
at its threshold. In view of the above
discussion, this Court cannot read the
judgment of Dr. Chandra Mohan Singhal
and others (supra) in favour of the appellant.

12. At the same time, it is also observed
that if the defendant-appellant successfully
establishes during the course of trial that
previous proceedings of mutation were based
upon disputed gift deeds and that the plaintiff
had knowledge about such proceedings,
certainly, the suit would be barred by
limitation but, at this stage, when the
evidence is yet to be led on all the disputed
questions of fact and law, question of
limitation cannot be said to be a pure question
of law so as to justify rejection of plaint at its
threshold.

13. In view of the above, this Court is
convinced that the first appellate court was
justified in leaving the question of
limitation to be decided as a mixed
question of fact and law after leading the
evidence.

14. Consequently, the appeal fails and
is, accordingly, dismissed.

15. However, it is clarified that the
findings/observations recorded in order
dated 22.11.2022 passed by the trial court
or the order dated 06.04.2023 passed by the
first appellate court shall not be treated as
final and would not affect the ultimate
decision of the Court on the question of
limitation.
----------
11 All. Kaniz Fatima Vs. Imran Khan
155
(2024) 11 ILRA 155
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.11.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 147 of 2024

Kaniz Fatima ...Plaintiff/Appellant
Versus
Imran Khan ...Defendant/Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Pranab Kumar Ganguli

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Sheikh Moazzam Inam

(A) Civil Law - Payment of Court Fees -
Court Fees Act, 1870 - Sections 6-A -
Appeal, Section 7(iv-A) - For cancellation
or
adjudging
void
instruments
and
decrees - Residuary Article - Ad-valorem
Fees - Defendant has a statutory right to
raise all objections regarding valuation
and deficiency in court fees - suit seeking
to declare a gift deed null, void, and
forged falls under Section 7(iv-A) of the
Court
Fees
Act
and
not
under the
residuary Article 17(iii) - Objections to
court fees raised by a defendant are
permissible under Section 6(4) of the Act.
(Para - 12,15,18)

(B) Interpretation of Statute - Distinction
between Article 17(iii) and Section 7(iv-A)
- Section 7(iv-A) - applies to cases
involving adjudging instruments void -
Article 17(iii) - applies to declaratory relief
without
consequential
relief.
(Para
-
8,9,10,12)

Appellant filed a suit against her son - alleging
that under the guise of executing a power of
attorney - a fraudulent gift deed was registered
- sought a declaration that deed was null, void,
and forged - no consequential relief was claimed
- suit has been correctly valued - Plaintiff has
not deposited ad-valorem Court fees on market
value of property - trial court directed appellant
to pay ad-valorem court fees under Section 7(ivA) of Court Fees Act - hence present
appeal.(Para 1-4 )

HELD: - Court upheld the trial court's direction
to pay ad-valorem fees under Section 7(iv-A),
affirming that objections to court fees by the
defendant are permissible under the Court Fees
Act. (Para -19,20)

Appeal dismissed. (E-7)
List of Cases cited:
1. Ratnavaramaraja Vs Vimla, AIR 1961 SC 1299
2. Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs Randhir
Singh & ors., (2010) 12 SCC 12
3. Shailendra Bharadwaj & ors. Vs Chandra Pal
& anr., (2013) 1 SCC 57
4. Agra Diocesan Trust Association Vs Anil David
& ors., AIR 2020 SC 1372

(Delivered by Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J.)

The Proceedings:
Appeal under section 6-A of the Courts
Fees Act, 1870

1. Heard Shri P.K. Ganguli, learned
counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and Shri
Sheikh Moazzam Inam, learned counsel for
the sole-respondent.

2. The instant appeal under Section 6A of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act of 1870') at the
instance of plaintiff of Original Suit No.576
of 2021 (Kaniz Fatima v. Imran Khan)
questions correctness and legality of the
order dated 13.12.2023 whereby the
learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division),
Gorakhpur has decided the issue No.2
holding that though the suit has been