CRA.729.2023.odt Ajay IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 729 OF 2023 Vijay Namdeo Sonawane and Ors. .. Applicants Versus Kebra Jagan Sonawane and Ors. .. Respondents ....................  Mr. Sugamdh B. Deshmukh a/w. Mr. Bhushan Gulabrao Deshmukh and Mr. Vaibhav Thorave, Advocates for Applicants.  Mr. M.S. Ansari, Advocate for Respondent No.1. ......…........... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : JUNE 12, 2026 P.C.: 1. Heard, Mr. Deshmukh, learned Advocate for Applicants and Mr. Ansari, learned Advocate for Respondent No.1. 2. Revision Applicants are original Defendant Nos.1,3,5 and 7 challenging Order dated 12.09.2023 passed by Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Baramati in Civil Suit No. 296 of 2021. Respondent No.1 is Plaintiff in Suit No. 296 of 2021. Applicants filed Application below Exhibit-22 under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”) for rejection of Plaint. 3. Briefly stated, Mr. Namdeo Umaji Sonawane (father of Applicant No.1) purchased one property bearing Gat No.30/6 admeasuring 36 Ares and another property being 15 Ares in Gat No.30/7/A/2 admeasuring 22 Ares (for short “Suit property”) from Mr. Kerba Jagan Sonwane i.e. Respondent No.1, vide Sale Deed dated 1 of 9 CRA.729.2023.odt 02.04.1982, duly registered with the Sub-Registrar, Baramati bearing Serial No. 549/82. Thereafter, name of Mr. Namdeo Umaji Sonawane came to be mutated in Revenue Records. Thereafter, certain parts of the Suit property were sold to various individuals, registered deeds were executed and these transactions were duly recorded in the Revenue Record. 3.1. On 07.09.2021, Respondent No.1 filed Regular Civil Suit No.296 of 2021 seeking declaration that Respondent No.1 is true and rightful owner of Suit property and sought to restrain Applicants from creating third party rights in Suit property. Applicants filed their Written Statement seeking dismissal of the Suit. Thereafter, Applicants filed Application, below Exhibit- 22, seeking dismissal of Suit Plaint on the ground that there is no cause of action, the Suit is barred by limitation as well as under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 3.2. Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Baramati passed impugned order dated 12.09.2023, rejecting aforesaid Application on the ground that Suit Plaint raised mixed questions of facts and law due to which question of limitation shall be decided after both parties lead evidence. Being aggrieved, Applicants filed present Civil Revision Application assailing impugned order dated 12.09.2023. 4. Mr. Deshmukh, learned Advocate for Applicants would submit that impugned order is illegal, bad in law and contrary to 2 of 9 CRA.729.2023.odt provisions of law. He would submit that bare perusal of Suit Plaint in Suit No. 296 of 2021 would show that no cause of action is made out. He would submit that entire cause of action pleaded by Respondent No.1 is illusory and imaginary and that ingenuity in drafting cannot be permitted to overcome bar of limitation. He would submit that present Applicant has therefore filed Application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC seeking dismissal of Suit. 4.1. He would submit that Sale Deed was executed on 02.04.1982 and subsequent Mutation Entries were made on the basis of the registered Sale Deed therefore Suit is hopelessly barred by limitation with a delay of 39 years on the face of record and ought to have been rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. He would submit that cause of action, if any, arose on 02.04.1982 and came to an end in 1987 and therefore, no cause of action survived in the Suit. He would submit that Applicants alongwith Applicant No. 1’s father were in possession and ownership of Suit property since 1982. 4.2. He would submit that Trial Court, by its order dated 12.09.2023, erroneously concluded that, considering facts and circumstances of the case and question of limitation being a mixed question of facts and law can only be decided after both parties lead evidence. He would submit that the Trial Court has incorrectly interpreted and applied the ratio of the judgments of Sharad Sitaramji 3 of 9 CRA.729.2023.odt Shende v. Nilesh Katariya1 and Sri Bishwanath Banik v. Sulanga Bose and Ors2 ipso facto to the facts of the present case which prima facie show delay of 39 years after crystallization of rights in favour of Applicants. 4.3. He would submit that Respondent No.1, in his reply to the application filed under Order VII Rule 11, admits the existence and execution of Sale Deed dated 02.04.1982. He would submit that the Trial Court failed to appreciate case of Applicants that Plaintiff had not only suppressed material facts but had also admitted existence of Sale Deed No. 549 of 1982, despite pleading to the contrary in Suit Plaint that no registered document existed in respect of the Suit property. He would submit that in view of such suppression of material facts by Respondent No.1, continuation of Suit would amount to abuse of the process of law. 4.4. He would submit that Trial Court failed to consider that Suit is hit by Section 34 of Specific Relief Act inasmuch as Respondent No.1 did not seek any substantive relief for cancellation of Sale Deed dated 02.04.1982. He would submit that Respondent No.1 neither challenged the said Sale Deed nor sought any consequential relief with respect to possession of the Suit property and hence the impugned order be quashed and set aside and the Suit be dismissed 1 2023 (1) Mh. L.J. 2 2022 (4) Mh. L.J. 4 of 9 CRA.729.2023.odt consequentially. 5. PER CONTRA, Mr. Ansari, learned Advocate appearing for Respondent No.1, would submit that Respondent No.1 never executed any Sale Deed in favour of the father of Applicant No.1 in respect of the Suit property. 5.1. He would submit that Respondent No.1 had made enquiries with the office of the Sub-Registrar and nearby registration offices, however, no information was furnished to him. He would submit that upon obtaining 7/12 extracts pertaining to Suit property, he gained knowledge that father of Applicant No.1 had fraudulently caused transfer of the Suit property in his favour in collusion with the Revenue Officers. 5.2. He would submit that Suit came to be instituted in the year 2021 immediately after cause of action arose and therefore is well within the prescribed period of limitation. He would submit that plain reading of the Suit Plaint demonstrates that Suit property originally belonged to and continued to remain in possession of Respondent No.1. 5.3. He would submit that father of Applicant No.1 took undue advantage of Respondent No.1’s illiteracy and caused the Suit property to be transferred in his own name without knowledge and consent of Respondent No.1. He would submit that Applicants obtained Mutation 5 of 9 CRA.729.2023.odt Entry No. 7839 in the year 1982 in collusion with Revenue Authorities and thereafter transferred portions of the suit property to third parties. He would submit that limitation in the present facts is therefore a mixed question of facts and law and hence urges to confirm the impugned order. 6. I have heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties and with their able assistance perused the record of the case. Submissions made by learned advocates at the bar have received due consideration of the bench. I have perused the plaint in Suit No. 296 of 2021 appended at page No.64 of the Civil Revision Application. 7. At the outset, principal point for determination is whether Suit No. 296 of 2021 is barred by limitation. It is evident from the record that a Sale Deed came to be executed between the father of Applicant No.1 and Respondent No.1 on 02.04.1982, which was registered bearing Registration No. 549/82. Consequent thereto, Mutation Entry No. 7839 came to be effected in the Revenue records in the name of Mr. Namdeo Umaji Sonawane. Though Respondent No.1 has disowned these facts, the transaction document is placed on record and the Mutation Entry corroborates the same. Hence denial made by Respondent No.1 of above facts and case of collusion with Revenue Authorities for effecting Mutation Entry in 1982 is on the face of record false and unbelievable. 6 of 9 CRA.729.2023.odt 8. It is seen that Applicants have remained in possession and enjoyment of the suit property for nearly 39 years without any objection, challenge or assertion of rights by Respondent No.1. The contention that cause of action arose only in the year 2021 therefore cannot be accepted. Once Sale Deed stood executed and registered in the year 1982, any challenge thereto ought to have been initiated within the prescribed period of limitation. The cause of action, therefore, arose at the earliest point in time upon execution and registration of the Sale Deed and not after the lapse of nearly four decades. Consequently, the suit appears to be ex facie barred by limitation. 9. It is further seen that Respondent No.1, having remained silent for almost 39 years, approached this Court alleging fraud. However, apart from making bald/unsubstantiated allegations, Respondent No.1 has failed to place on record any material indicating even prima facie commission of fraud by Applicants. The pleadings do not disclose any specific acts, particulars or circumstances constituting fraud. There is nothing on record to show that there was any collusion between Applicant and Revenue Officers as contended by Mr. Ansari. 10. It is seen that long-standing revenue entries, made pursuant to registered documents executed between parties, carry considerable evidentiary value for determining the date of its knowledge. The 7 of 9 CRA.729.2023.odt contention by Mr. Ansari that Respondent No.1 acquired knowledge only upon conducting an enquiry in the year 2021 and thereafter instituted the Suit, cannot, in view of this Court, defeat law of limitation. Prima facie, the Suit is clearly barred by limitation. 11. This Court further finds merit in the contention of Applicants that Plaintiff has sought declaration of ownership without seeking appropriate substantive relief of cancellation of the registered Sale Deed dated 02.04.1982 and in absence of such challenge, prayers in the Suit Plaint are barred by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 12. It is seen that Trial Court has simplicitor proceeded on the premise that limitation is a mixed question of law and facts and therefore, since Defendants/Applicants had sought rejection of Suit Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 on the ground of limitation, Suit could not be dismissed prior to recording evidence. The Trial Court further has observed that the Plaintiff/Respondent No.1 denied existence of any Sale Deed or registered document and that, for deciding application under Order VII Rule 11, only averments in Suit Plaint are to be considered. However, this does not imply that documents placed on record must be ignored. In the present case, Sale deed placed on record and Mutation Entries are recorded on the basis of this registered Sale Deed. When a Suit is instituted after a lapse of nearly 8 of 9 CRA.729.2023.odt 39 years, without any explanation and long-standing public revenue record reflects the transaction, Suit Plaint becomes liable to rejection. Trial Court unreasoned order on these aspects does not inspire any confidence of this Court. Consequently, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 13. In the above circumstances, Trial Court has erred in holding that limitation in the present facts and circumstances of the case was a mixed question of facts and law requiring trial. No ambiguity arises from the pleadings at all. Perusal of the Suit Plaint would show that Suit is ex facie barred by limitation and therefore under provisions of Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the CPC it ought to have been dismissed. 14. Accordingly, in view of above observations and findings impugned Order dated 12.09.2023 is quashed and set aside. Resultantly, Application under Exhibit – 22 stands allowed. Plaint in Regular Civil Suit No.296 of 2021 stands rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the CPC. 15. Civil Revision Application No. 729 of 2023 stands allowed and disposed of. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] Ajay 9 of 9 AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Digitally signed by AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.06.12 12:11:11 +0530