Nikhila Divyang Mehta v. Hitesh P. Sanghvi

, ,

Citation: 2025 (4) KLR (SC) 69 : 2025 INSC 485
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: Pankaj Mithal, J.; S.V.N. Bhatti, J.
Date of Judgment: April 15, 2025
Case Type: Civil Appeal No. of 2025 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 13459 of 2024)
Parties: Nikhila Divyang Mehta & Anr. v. Hitesh P. Sanghvi & Ors.

Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 58 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order VII Rule 11(d) – Suit for declaration of Will and Codicil as null and void – Limitation period.

Suit filed on 21-11-2017, beyond three years from plaintiff’s admitted knowledge of Will and Codicil in first week of November 2014 – Plaint averments clearly establishing cause of action arose in November 2014 – Suit ex-facie barred by limitation – No evidence required to determine limitation when plaint admissions are conclusive – Distinction between “knowledge” and “full knowledge” untenable – Consequential reliefs (injunction) dependent on primary relief of declaration, cannot survive if primary relief time-barred – Section 3 mandates dismissal of time-barred suits, even if limitation not raised as defense – High Court erred in reversing trial court’s rejection of plaint and allowing evidence on limitation – Trial court’s order rejecting plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) restored.

Appeal allowed.

[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 08-02-2024 in R/FA No. 4896/2019 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad]

For Petitioner(s) Ms. Anushree Prashit Kapadia, AOR Ms. Shivangi Chawla, Adv. Ms. Shrutika Garg, Adv. Mr. Pranay Bhardwaj, Adv. 

For Respondent(s) Mr. Bhadrish S. Raju, Adv. Mr. Dhanesh Patel, Adv. Mr. Shivansh Bharatkumar Pandya, AOR Mr. Sankalp Kumar, Adv.

Prior History:

  • High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, R/FA No. 4896/2019, Judgment dated 08-02-2024
  • City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, Order dated 23-10-2018

Facts

Hitesh P. Sanghvi (plaintiff) filed Civil Suit No. 1758/2017 in the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, against four defendants, including Nikhila Divyang Mehta, seeking to declare a Will dated 04-02-2014 and a Codicil dated 20-09-2014, executed by his late father, Pramod Kesurdas Sanghavi, as null and void, along with a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from acting on the Will and Codicil. The plaintiff, son of the deceased, learned of the Will and Codicil in the first week of November 2014, after his father’s death on 21-10-2014. The suit was filed on 21-11-2017. The defendants moved applications under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to reject the plaint, arguing the suit was barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as it was filed beyond the three-year period from the date the plaintiff gained knowledge of the Will and Codicil.

Procedural History

  • City Civil Court, Ahmedabad: Allowed the defendants’ applications (Exh. 25, 28, 33) under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, rejecting the plaint on 23-10-2018, holding the suit was barred by limitation since it was filed beyond three years from November 2014.
  • High Court of Gujarat: Reversed the trial court’s order on 08-02-2024, restoring the suit for decision on merits, reasoning that evidence on limitation was required and the plaint sought multiple reliefs, not all of which were time-barred.
  • Supreme Court: The appellants challenged the High Court’s judgment, leading to this appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the suit filed on 21-11-2017 to declare the Will and Codicil as null and void was barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
  2. Whether the High Court erred in reversing the trial court’s rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

Holding

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment dated 08-02-2024, and restored the trial court’s order rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC as barred by limitation.

Reasoning

  • Limitation Period: Under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, a suit for declaration must be filed within three years from when the right to sue first accrues. The plaintiff admitted in the plaint that he learned of the Will and Codicil in the first week of November 2014. Thus, the limitation period expired by the first week of November 2017. The suit, filed on 21-11-2017, was beyond this period and ex-facie barred.
  • Cause of Action: The plaintiff’s averments indicated the cause of action arose on 04-02-2014 (Will execution), 20-09-2014 (Codicil execution), and 21-10-2014 (father’s death), with knowledge acquired in November 2014. Even taking the latest date (November 2014), the suit was filed after the three-year limitation period.
  • No Evidence Required: The issue of limitation was determinable from the plaint’s averments alone, as the plaintiff admitted the date of knowledge. The Supreme Court rejected the High Court’s view that evidence was needed, holding that limitation was a factual issue resolved by the plaint’s clear statements.
  • Knowledge vs. Full Knowledge: The High Court’s distinction between “knowledge” and “full knowledge” was dismissed as fallacious. The plaintiff did not plead a later date of “complete knowledge,” and limitation runs from when the cause of action first accrues, not subsequent events.
  • Ancillary Reliefs: The primary relief sought was to declare the Will and Codicil null and void, with the injunction and other reliefs being consequential. Since the primary relief was time-barred, the ancillary reliefs could not stand independently.
  • Mandatory Nature of Limitation: Section 3 of the Limitation Act mandates dismissal of a suit filed beyond the prescribed period, even if limitation is not raised as a defense. The Court emphasized this as a public policy measure, obligating dismissal of the suit.

Disposition

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, restored the trial court’s order, and rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC as barred by limitation. The appeal was allowed with no costs.

Significance

This case reaffirms the strict application of limitation periods under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, emphasizing that courts must dismiss suits filed beyond the prescribed period based on the plaint’s averments alone, without requiring evidence, when the facts are clear. It also clarifies that consequential reliefs cannot survive if the primary relief is time-barred and rejects artificial distinctions like “knowledge” versus “full knowledge” in computing limitation.

Citation: 2025 (4) KLR (SC) 69

Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs)

  1. What was the primary relief sought by the plaintiff in the suit filed in the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad?
    • A) Permanent injunction against the defendants
    • B) Declaration of the Will dated 04-02-2014 and Codicil dated 20-09-2014 as null and void
    • C) Partition of the deceased’s property
    • D) Recovery of movable assets
    • Correct Answer: B) Declaration of the Will dated 04-02-2014 and Codicil dated 20-09-2014 as null and void
  2. Under which provision did the defendants move applications to reject the plaint?
    • A) Order VI Rule 16 CPC
    • B) Order VII Rule 11 CPC
    • C) Order VIII Rule 1 CPC
    • D) Order XII Rule 6 CPC
    • Correct Answer: B) Order VII Rule 11 CPC
  3. According to Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, what is the limitation period for a suit seeking a declaration?
    • A) One year
    • B) Two years
    • C) Three years
    • D) Five years
    • Correct Answer: C) Three years
  4. When did the plaintiff claim to have acquired knowledge of the Will and Codicil?
    • A) 04-02-2014
    • B) 20-09-2014
    • C) First week of November 2014
    • D) 21-11-2017
    • Correct Answer: C) First week of November 2014
  5. Why did the Supreme Court hold that the suit was barred by limitation?
    • A) The suit was filed within three years of the Will’s execution
    • B) The plaintiff lacked complete knowledge of the Will and Codicil
    • C) The suit was filed beyond three years from the plaintiff’s knowledge in November 2014
    • D) The defendants failed to raise limitation as a defense
    • Correct Answer: C) The suit was filed beyond three years from the plaintiff’s knowledge in November 2014
  6. What was the Supreme Court’s view on the High Court’s distinction between “knowledge” and “full knowledge”?
    • A) It was a valid distinction and supported the High Court’s ruling
    • B) It was fallacious and not supported by the plaintiff’s pleadings
    • C) It required further evidence to be established
    • D) It was irrelevant to the case
    • Correct Answer: B) It was fallacious and not supported by the plaintiff’s pleadings
  7. What was the final outcome of the Supreme Court’s judgment?
    • A) The High Court’s order was upheld, and the suit was restored
    • B) The trial court’s order rejecting the plaint was restored, and the appeal was allowed
    • C) The case was remanded to the trial court for fresh consideration
    • D) The suit was dismissed with costs
    • Correct Answer: B) The trial court’s order rejecting the plaint was restored, and the appeal was allowed
  8. Why did the Supreme Court reject the High Court’s view that evidence was needed on limitation?
    • A) The plaint’s averments conclusively showed the suit was time-barred
    • B) The defendants admitted the suit was within time
    • C) The plaintiff provided evidence of delayed knowledge
    • D) Limitation was not raised by the defendants
    • Correct Answer: A) The plaint’s averments conclusively showed the suit was time-barred

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

  1. What was the main issue before the Supreme Court in this case?
    • The main issue was whether the suit filed on 21-11-2017 to declare a Will and Codicil as null and void was barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and whether the High Court erred in reversing the trial court’s rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
  2. Why did the defendants seek rejection of the plaint?
    • The defendants argued that the suit was barred by limitation, as it was filed more than three years after the plaintiff acquired knowledge of the Will and Codicil in the first week of November 2014, violating the three-year limitation period under Article 58 of the Limitation Act.
  3. What was the High Court’s reasoning for restoring the suit?
    • The High Court held that the parties should be allowed to lead evidence on the issue of limitation and that the plaint could not be rejected in part, as it sought multiple reliefs, some of which were not necessarily time-barred.
  4. Why did the Supreme Court disagree with the High Court’s decision?
    • The Supreme Court found that the plaint’s averments clearly showed the plaintiff knew of the Will and Codicil in November 2014, making the suit filed in November 2017 time-barred. No evidence was needed, as the issue was determinable from the plaint alone. The distinction between “knowledge” and “full knowledge” was rejected, and the consequential reliefs (e.g., injunction) depended on the time-barred primary relief.
  5. What role did Section 3 of the Limitation Act play in the Supreme Court’s decision?
    • Section 3 mandates that courts dismiss suits filed beyond the prescribed limitation period, even if limitation is not raised as a defense. The Supreme Court emphasized this as a public policy measure, obligating dismissal of the suit based on the plaint’s admissions.
  6. How did the Supreme Court address the argument that ancillary reliefs could survive even if the primary relief was time-barred?
    • The Court held that the primary relief was to declare the Will and Codicil null and void, and the ancillary reliefs (e.g., injunction) were dependent on it. Since the primary relief was time-barred, the ancillary reliefs could not be granted independently.
  7. What is the significance of this judgment for limitation law in India?
    • The judgment reinforces the strict application of limitation periods under Article 58, emphasizing that courts must dismiss time-barred suits based on plaint averments alone when facts are clear, without requiring evidence. It also clarifies that consequential reliefs cannot survive if the primary relief is time-barred and rejects artificial distinctions like “knowledge” versus “full knowledge.”
  8. What provision of the CPC was applied to reject the plaint, and why?
    • The plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, which allows rejection when the suit appears from the plaint’s statements to be barred by law. Here, the plaint’s averments showed the suit was filed beyond the three-year limitation period, making rejection appropriate.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
  • ASF Buildtech v. Shapoorji Pallonji & Co.
    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 7, 11, 16, 21, 23, 37 – Power of Arbitral Tribunal to Implead Non-Signatories – Group of Companies Doctrine – Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal – Notice under Section 21 – Competence-Competence Principle.
  • Analysis of the Drugs and Cosmetics (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2025
    The Drugs and Cosmetics (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2025, notified by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), provide a framework for compounding certain offences committed under the Act.
  • Res Judicata in Criminal Proceedings
    The principle of res judicata, derived from the Latin maxim res judicata pro veritate accipitur (a matter adjudged is taken as true), is a fundamental doctrine in civil law that prevents the re-litigation of issues already decided between the same parties.
  • Krishna Kumar Kedia v. Union of India
    Penal Code, 1860, Sections 407, 420, 465, 471 – Forgery and Misappropriation – Conviction Upheld – Sentence Reduced.
  • Shenbagavalli v. Inspector of Police, Kancheepuram District
    Abetment of Suicide – Section 306 IPC – Essential Ingredients – Absence of Proximity and Instigation – Quashing of Chargesheet.
  • Drugs and Cosmetics (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2025
    These rules may be called the Drugs and Cosmetics (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2025.
  • Kerala State Elderly Commission Act, 2025
    An Act to constitute an Elderly Commission for giving guidelines in matters related to the welfare and protection of the elderly and to enable their rehabilitation and to undertake and carry out schemes and activities necessary for making use of their skills and experience for utilizing it for the general public and to ensure the protection of rights and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
  • Okhla Enclave Plot Holders Welfare Association v. Union of India
    Land Allotment Dispute – Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975
  • Central Bureau of Investigation v. Surendra Patwa
    Administrative and criminal proceedings operate independently; procedural lapses in former do not nullify latter.
  • Principal Chief Conservator of Forest v. Suresh Mathew
    Judicial review in contractual matters limited to cases of mala fides, arbitrariness, or irrationality – Decision to re-tender due to Covid-19 restrictions affecting contractor participation held bona fide and in public interest – No fundamental right to renewal of contractor registration – Government’s discretion to protect financial interests by inviting fresh tenders upheld.