What did the Supreme Court decide about limitation?

Limitation runs from the first day the right to sue arises. Later transfers do not extend or restart the period under Article 59 of the Limitation Act.

Can non-payment of full consideration cancel a registered sale deed?

No. Non-payment may give a remedy for recovery of money, but it is not by itself a ground to cancel a registered sale deed.

When can a plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC?

When from the plaint itself the suit appears barred by any law, such as limitation; then the court must reject the plaint.

What is an illusory cause of action?

It is a claim created by clever drafting that hides the real dates or facts to avoid limitation. Courts will see through such drafting.

What was the dispute about in this case?

Agricultural land under restrictive tenure; permission-based sale; later resale; and a challenge to subsequent sale deeds filed beyond limitation.

Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (GAJRA)(D)

Quick Summary

This case explains a simple rule: limitation starts when your legal injury first happens. You cannot wait for a later event to restart time.

The plaintiffs challenged later sale deeds, saying the first buyer did not pay the full price. The Court said: even if price was not fully paid, the proper remedy is to recover money, not to cancel a registered sale deed after time has run out. The plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) as barred by limitation.

Issues

Does limitation count from the first day the right to sue arises?
Can later resale be invalidated only because the original price was not fully paid?

Rules

Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC: If the plaint shows the suit is barred by law, the court must reject it.
Article 59, Limitation Act, 1963: Three years to cancel/void instruments; time starts when grounds first arise.
Registered Sale Deed: Non-payment of full price may allow a money claim; it is not, by itself, a ground to cancel the deed.
Pleadings: Courts will not allow “clever drafting” to create an illusory cause of action to dodge limitation.
LRC s.73AA (Restrictive Tenure): Sales need permission and compliance with conditions, but limitation still applies to challenges.

Start Point of Limitation

Facts (Timeline)

Agricultural land: The land was under restrictive tenure (LRC s.73AA).

Permission: Plaintiff sought Collector’s permission to sell; permission granted with conditions under s.73AA.

First sale: Property sold to Respondent No.1 on permitted terms.

Resale: Respondent No.1 later sold the land to Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

Suit filed: Plaintiffs sued for cancellation, saying full sale price was not paid.

Order VII Rule 11 move: Respondents 2 & 3 sought rejection for no cause of action and bar of limitation.

Trial Court: Rejected the plaint under O.VII R.11(d) as time-barred.

High Court: Confirmed trial court; upheld the sale deed between respondents.

Supreme Court: Dismissed the challenge; explained when limitation starts and why cancellation relief was not available.

Case timeline: Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (GAJRA)(D)

Arguments

Appellants (Plaintiffs)

Collector fixed consideration; full payment was not made.
Later resale should be set aside as illegal and not binding.
Suit is within limitation considering subsequent events.

Respondents

From the plaint itself, the suit is time-barred (Art.59).
Non-payment—if true—gives only a money remedy, not deed cancellation.
Pleading tries to create an illusory cause to bypass limitation.

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d). The suit was clearly barred by limitation under Article 59.

The right to sue began when the first non-payment (bogus cheques/non-clearance) happened, not when the land was resold later. Cancellation was not the correct remedy for non-payment; recovery of balance consideration could be pursued as per law.

Ratio

Limitation starts when the cause first arises—later transfers do not restart time.
Non-payment does not, by itself, justify cancellation of a registered sale deed.
If the plaint itself shows a bar (e.g., time-bar), the court must reject it (O.VII R.11(d)).
Clever drafting cannot create a real cause of action where none exists.

Why It Matters

This case teaches students to spot the true start date of limitation and to ask: “Is cancellation the right remedy, or is it a money claim?” It also warns against over-pleading to escape time bars.

Key Takeaways

Find the first legal injury; start limitation from there.
Article 59: 3 years to challenge instruments.
Choose the correct remedy—cancellation vs. recovery.
Courts reject plaints that are time-barred on their face.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “First Hurt, First Hourglass.”

First Hurt: Spot the first breach or bogus payment.
Hourglass: Article 59 clock runs from that day.
Right Tool: Ask for money if unpaid; don’t cancel deed without legal grounds.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Is the suit for cancellation within time when non-payment occurred years earlier?

Rule

O.VII R.11(d) CPC; Article 59—time begins when grounds first arise; non-payment ≠ automatic cancellation ground.

Application

The real injury happened on failed payment (bogus cheques), not on later resale; plaint shows time-bar on its face.

Conclusion

Suit is barred; plaint rightly rejected under O.VII R.11(d). Recovery remedies may survive.

Glossary

Right to Sue: The moment when a legal injury lets you file a suit; starts limitation.
Order VII Rule 11: Rule for rejecting plaints that disclose a legal bar or no cause of action.
Article 59: Time limit to cancel/void instruments; three years from first accrual.
Illusory Cause: A claim framed to hide limitation by artful wording.
Restrictive Tenure: Land that can be sold only with permission under special conditions (LRC s.73AA).