In Brief
In this split decision (2-judge bench), the Court examined whether a suit for declaration filed in 2012, challenging sale deeds from 1969 and 1995, was barred by limitation. The majority (Sanjiv Khanna, J.) upheld the rejection of the plaint, finding that on the admitted legal notices and pleadings, the plaintiff had knowledge of the property transfer by 2008 but failed to exercise reasonable diligence in discovering the alleged fraud. The dissent (Bela M. Trivedi, J.) held that limitation is a mixed question of fact and law unsuitable for preliminary determination, that written statements cannot be considered when rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC, and that the High Court improperly mixed three distinct procedural rules to reject the suit. The dissent allowed the appeal and restored the suit for trial on merits.</summary_100>
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.