Introduction 

This case deals with the concept that the period of limitation is to be counted from the date when the right to sue first accrues. 

Facts

• The land in dispute was agricultural land under restrictive tenure as per Section 73AA of the Land Revenue Code (LRC). 
• The plaintiff filed an application before the Collector to sell the suit property to the defendant, stating that they had no objection to selling it. 
• The Collector granted permission for the sale subject to the terms and conditions contained in Section 73AA of the LRC. 
• Later, the defendant sold the same property to the other defendants. 
• The plaintiffs filed a Special Civil Suit before the Principal Civil Judge against the original purchaser, i.e., Respondent No. 1, and also impleaded the subsequent purchasers, i.e., Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, as defendants. 
• The plaintiffs prayed that the subsequent sale by the respondent (original purchaser) be canceled and declared illegal, void, ineffective, and not binding on them on the ground that the sale consideration fixed by the Collector had not been paid in full. 
• Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed an application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), contending that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was barred by limitation and that no cause of action had been disclosed in the plaint. 
• The Trial Court held that the suit of the plaintiffs was barred by limitation and allowed the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. 
• Aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, the plaintiffs filed an appeal before the Gujarat High Court. 
• The Gujarat High Court confirmed the order of the Trial Court and held the sale deed between the respondent and the other respondents valid. 
• Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs filed a petition before the Supreme Court. 

Issues Involved 

• Whether the period of limitation counted from the date when the right to sue first accrued? 
• Whether the subsequent sale deeds held to be invalid because of nonpayment of the original sale deed? 

Observations 

• The Supreme Court noted that Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC provides that where a suit appears from the averments in the plaint to be barred by any law, the plaint shall be rejected. 
• The Supreme Court also noted that even if the averments of the plaintiffs are taken to be true—that the entire sale consideration had not, in fact, been paid—it could not be a ground for the cancellation of the sale deed. 
• The Supreme Court clarified that the plaintiffs may have other remedies in law for the recovery of the balance consideration but could not be granted the relief of cancellation of the registered sale deed. 
• The Supreme Court pointed out that by clever drafting of the plaint, the plaintiffs attempted to make out an illusory cause of action and bring the suit within the period of limitation. 
• The cause of action arose at the time when the cheques given by the defendant to the plaintiff were found to be bogus and the payment was not made on time, not when the defendant sold the suit property to the other defendants. 
• The delay of over 5½ years after the alleged cause of action arose shows that the suit was clearly barred by limitation as per Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 

Conclusion 

The Supreme Court confirmed the order of the High Court and the Trial court and held the suit is barred by limitation.