Obtaining Certified Copies Of Property Documents Years Later Can't Revive Limitation Period For Filing Suit: MP High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the plaintiff cannot extend or revive the period of limitation merely by subsequently obtaining certified copies of sale deeds, particularly when his own pleadings establish that he had knowledge of the disputed land transactions and changes in revenue records since several years. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 456]The bench of Justice Deepak Khot observed:"In...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the plaintiff cannot extend or revive the period of limitation merely by subsequently obtaining certified copies of sale deeds, particularly when his own pleadings establish that he had knowledge of the disputed land transactions and changes in revenue records since several years. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 456]
The bench of Justice Deepak Khot observed:
"In the present case, despite acquiring knowledge of the subdivision and the defendants' entries in 2015, the respondent/plaintiff did not obtain the certified copies of the relevant documents until June 2024. The mere subsequent procurement of certified copies cannot, in the facts of the present case, automatically extend or revive the period of limitation".
A revision was filed challenging the order of the Trial Court rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, seeking rejection of a suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent. The underlying suit sought a declaration of title and permanent injunction over land in District Sarna. The plaintiff had sought a declaration that two sale deeds, dated April 30 and July 15, 1994, executed by Sher Mohammas in favour of defendant no. 2 were void and illegal.
The plaintiff claimed ownership over ancestral property which was subsequently divided into 3 survey numbers. He also challenged the corresponding revenue entries and sought to restrain the defendants from transferring the disputed land or interfering with his possession.
The petitioner argued that the suit was barred by limitation and that the plaintiff had attempted to create a fictitious cause of action to bring the claim within the prescribed period. It was argued that, per the plaintiff's own pleadings, he had discovered in 2015, while intending to sell his land, that it was divided into four separate sub-divided survey numbers.
Despite acquiring knowledge in 2015, the plaintiff instituted the suit only in 2024. The petitioner argued that even if limitation were calculated from the date of knowledge, the suit was barred under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, which prescribed a period of three years for seeking a declaration.
The plaintiff argued that he had discovered the relevant revenue entries and mutation proceedings only in 2024 after obtaining the revenue record. He submitted that although he became aware of the subdivision of the land in 2015, the defendants had assured him that the revenue entries would be corrected and restored in his name. According to him, the defendants had acknowledged his title and cultivating possession at the time and had not disputed his ownership.
The plaintiff further argued that he obtained certified copies of the two disputed sale deeds for the first time on June 7, 2024, after applying for them on June 2, 2024. The suit was subsequently instituted on August 6, 2024, within two months of obtaining certified copies.
The court noted that to decide an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only the pleadings of the plaint are relevant. The court, from the pleadings, noted that the plaintiff himself stated that in the year 2015, he discovered that the land was divided into four survey numbers, out of which he sold one portion. Thus, the pleadings make it clear that "very much aware of the fact that the land was subdivided into four survey numbers and that the mutation in favour of the defendants was taken place much prior to it in the year 2000–2001".
Emphasising that the plaintiff did not obtain revenue records for almost nine years, the court noted that it was "impracticable to believe". The court further noted that the plaintiff had gathered the knowledge that the revenue records were changed in 2000-2001. The plaintiff challenged the sale deeds that were executed in 1994 by asserting his title over the suit property in 2024.
The bench remarked, "The respondent/plaintiff slept over his right and woke up from his deep slumber only in the year 2024 and to concoct a cause of action, it is averred that the respondent/plaintiff gathered knowledge in the year 2015, but he obtained certified copies of the revenue records in the year 2024. From the holistic reading of the plaint averments, it is found that the cause of action, which has been tried to be portrayed, is fictitious and vexatious to file a suit belatedly, when admittedly the respondent/plaintiff has sold his part of land in the year 2015 itself".
Accordingly, the bench allowed the revision and set aside the impugned order.