1 2025:CGHC:55489 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 503 of 2014 1 - Smt. Bhanmati W/o Rega (Dead), Radha Mani, W/o Shukhdhar, Age- 35 Years, R/o Village- Hatkachora, Tah. Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar C.G., Chhattisgarh ...Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Vibharani W/o K.R. Vasu Through- Dinesh Thakur, Sarpanch, R/o Village- Hatkachora, Tah. Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar C.G., Chhattisgarh 2 - Narendra Kumar S/o Purshottam Motiwala, R/o Kewramunda Pratapganj, Tah. Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar C.G., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Narendra Kumar S/o Purshottam Prem Ji Motiwala, R/o Luhandiguda Pratapganj, Tah. Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar C.G., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Tarachand Jain (Dead) Legal Heir - Rakesh Kumar Jain S/o Tarachand Jain, R/o Pratapganj Para, Tah. Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar C.G., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 5 - Avtar Singh S/o Muha Singh Kshtri, R/o Gangamunda, Tah. Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar C.G., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 6 - Mst. Santosh W/o Mangal Sai, R/o Hatkachora, Tah. Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar C.G., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 7 - Anirudh Jha S/o Naresh Jha, R/o Gangamunda, Tah. Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar C.G., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 8 - Mangal Sai S/o Chamra Through Legal Heir Karan S/o Chamra, Aged About 55 Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2025.12.12 18:53:11 +0530 2 Years, R/o Hatkachora, Tah. Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar C.G., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 9 - Ajay S/o Firoz, R/o Ramaiyya Ward, Tah. Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar C.G., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 10 - Smt. Mira Bhattacharya (Dead), W/o Late Dhiraj Bhattacharya, R/o Kumharpara, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) Through Legal Heirs a) - Satyajeet Bhattacharya b) - Vishwajeet Bhattacharya c) - Mahovika Bhattacharya d) - Mridula Bhattacharya 11 - Shamnath (Dead), Through- Legal Heir Shivnath R/o Karkapal, Distt. Bastar C.G., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 12 - Budru (Dead), Through- Legal Heir Maagi S/o Budru, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Hatkachora, Tah. Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar C.G., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 13 - Gyanlata W/o Dilip Singh @ Jaidev Mahra, R/o Village- Hatkachora, Tah. Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar C.G., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 14 - Smt. Shanti Bai Bose W/o V.C. Bose, R/o Moti Talab Para, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar C.G., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 15 - Smt. Shanti Bai Bose W/o Vasudev Chand Bose, R/o Moti Talab Para, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar C.G., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 16 - Mohan Rao (Dead), Through Legal Heir Smt. Punam Yadav W/o Mohan Rao, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Kewramunda, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar C.G., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 17 - State of Chhattisgarh Through District Collector, Bastar, Jagdalpur C.G., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 3 ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Sameer Oraon, Advocate. For State : Mr. Ajay Kumarani, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Judgment on Board 13-11-2025 1. The present second appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the impugned judgment and decree dated 29-10-2014 passed by the learned Second Additional District Judge Bastar place Jagdalpur in Civil Appeal No.05A/2006 whereby the civil appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 12-09-2005 passed by the learned Fourth Civil Judge Class II Jagdalpur, District Bastar in Civil Suit No.21A/2005 has been affirmed. 2. The present second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law on 03-08-2022:- “(A) Whether, both the Courts below were justified to rejecting the suit of plaintiff only on the ground of limitation? (B) Whether, both the Courts below are also justified to dismiss the suit for non affixing the Court fee without giving any opportunity for affixing of Court fee?” 3. The appellant is legal heir of plaintiff who had filed the suit before the learned trial Court. The plaintiff had filed the Civil Suit before the learned trial Court for declaration of title, possession of the suit property and also declaring the sale deeds executed in favour of the defendants as null and void. The civil suit was filed on 25-11-1999. It is pleaded in the plaint that the suit properties shown in Schedule A annexed with the plaint are ancestral property of the plaintiff and due to the illiteracy of ancestors and their ignorance, the defendants No.1 to 16 got the suit properties mutated in their own name fraudulently and dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit properties. The 4 defendants have no right of title over the suit properties and therefore, relief claimed by the plaintiff may be granted in her favour. 4. The defendants have contested the claim of the plaintiff and filed their written statement denying the right and title of the plaintiff over the suit properties and pleaded that the defendant No.1 has purchased the land of Khasra No.83/3 area 0.50 acre through registered sale deed dated 16-06-1961 from Lachhin and Bhanmati and subsequently they sold the said land to Smt. Minoti Chatterjee, Smt. Sharda Devi, Bhupesh Choudhari and Smt. Indra Singh and the plaintiff herself was the executor of the sale deed which was executed on 16-06-1961 and therefore, the suit is barred by limitation. 5. 5. The defendants No.2 and 3 have also contested the suit on the ground that they have purchased the suit land through registered sale deed dated 14-07- 1960 and 24-03-1962 from Lachhin, Sonu and others and therefore, the suit is barred by limitation. 6. The defendants No.10A and B have also filed their written statement and submitted that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation. 7. The defendants No.12, 13 have also stated in their written statement that they purchased the suit land Khasra No.181/1 area 0.75 acre from Bhanmati through registered sale deed dated 10-09-1975 and 189/1 area 1.15 acre through registered sale deed dated 06-02-1967. Purchaser Budaru has executed a will on 05-10-1988 in favour of his wife Smt. Uribai and son Bhagi and after death of Uribai, Bhagi is the sole title and possession holder of his property. He also raised objection that the suit of the plaintiff is beyond limitation. 8. Similar is the defence taken by defendant No.14 in his written statement that she purchased total 3.00 acre of land from the suit land through registered sale deed dated 15-04-1969 from Bhanmati and Musammat Chhendi W/o Lachhim, the suit land of Khasra No.189/4 was purchased through registered sale deed dated 06-08-1973 and 189/4 through registered sale deed dated 5 10-01-1973 and is in possession of the same since then and therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation. 9. The defendants have also raised objection with respect to the valuation of the suit put by the plaintiff in the plaint. 10. The learned trial Court has framed preliminary issue on 16-08-2005 for its determination holding that the suit may be decided on the preliminary issues which are pure questions of law and framed two preliminary issues which are as follow:- “1@ D;k oknh us okn dk mfpr eqY;kdu dj leqfpr #i ls U;k; 'kqYd pLik fd;k gS \ 2@ D;k oknh us ;g okn fu/kkZfjr le; vof/k esa is’k fd;k gS \” 11. The learned trial Court after hearing the submissions of the parties on the preliminary issues and held that the suit was beyond limitation as all the sale deeds are in between the period of 1960 to 1962 and the suit has been been filed on 25-11-1999 which is apparently barred by limitation as provided under Article 59 of the Limitation Act and also held that the suit was not properly valued as the plaintiff was required to value and to pay the court fee ad-valorem to the valuation of the sale deeds and on these two grounds the suit of the plaintiff has been dismissed. 12. The first appeal was filed by the plaintiff before the first appellant Court and the first appellate Court has affirmed the finding recorded by the learned trial Court by holding that the issues involved in the present appeal is not required to lead any evidence and the issue of limitation can be decided without recording evidence of the parties and dismissed the first appeal filed by the plaintiff which is under challenge in the present second appeal. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the issue of limitation is not pure question of law, but it is a mixed question of law and facts which ought to have been decided after recording evidence of the parties. The allegation of fraudulent transaction and knowledge of the mutation of the names of defendants over the suit lands in the revenue records are disputed 6 questions of facts which cannot be said to be pure question of law and the same requires evidence and therefore, the learned courts below have committed error while recording finding on the preliminary issue and therefore, the impugned judgment and decree is liable to be set aside. He would also submit that the plaintiff is entitled to put value her suit as per Ad- valorement of the sale deeds and the issue of court fees can also not be decided without recording the evidence of the parties. The plaintiff has claimed her declaration of title and possession of the suit property and therefore, she appropriately valued her suit and paid the court fees. Even otherwise, if it is found that the plaintiff has undervalued her suit, one opportunity should have been granted to her to correct the valuation of the suit as provided under the provision of Order 7 Rule 11(c) of the CPC and on that ground the suit cannot be dismissed without affording opportunity to correct the value of the suit and to pay the sufficient court fees, if any. Therefore, the impugned judgment is erroneous on both these grounds and the same is liable to be set aside. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court. 15. There is two issues involved in the present case as to whether the suit can be dismissed on the ground of limitation without recording evidence of the parties and whether the suit can be dismissed on the ground of proper valuation and deficit court fee. So far as the preliminary issue is concerned, Order 14 Rule 2 of the CPC provides that: “2. Court to pronounce judgment on all issues.─(1) Notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on preliminary issue, the Court shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), pronounce judgment on all issues. 2) Where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that issue first if that issue relates to─ 7 (a) the jurisdiction of the Court, or (b) a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force, and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the other issues until after that issue has been determined, and may deal with the suit in accordance with the decision on that issue.” 16. Order 14 Rule 2(2) of the CPC provides that if the issue involved in the case and the court is of the opinion that the case may be disposed of on the issue of law only he may try that issue first. In the present case, the learned trial Court has framed two issues and considering that the issue involved in the case is relates to the issue of law only, decided the same first without recording evidence of the parties. The issue of limitation consist a bonafidy of facts including the law, i.e., when the limitation starts and whether the cause of action arises on the knowledge of the plaintiff or whether her conduct gives rise presumption about starting point of limitation etc. The issue of limitation are the mixed question of law and facts. 17. In the case of Satti Paradesi Samadhi and Pillayar Temple Vs. M. Sankuntala (dead) through legal representatives and others, (2015) 5 SCC 674 it has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 14 that:- “14. In Ramesh B. Desai v. Bipin Vadilal Mehta [(2006) 5 SCC 638] while dealing with the issue of limitation, the Court opined that: (SCC p. 652, para 19) "19. A plea of limitation cannot be decided as an abstract principle of law divorced from facts as in every case the starting point of limitation has to be ascertained which is entirely a question of fact." The Court further proceeded to state that a plea of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law. On a plain consideration of the language employed in sub-rule (2) of Order 14 it can be stated with certitude that when an issue requires an inquiry into facts it cannot be tried as preliminary issue. In the said judgment the Court opined as follows: Ramesh B. Desai case [(2006) 5 SCC 638], SCC p. 650, para 13) 8 "13. Sub-rule (2) of Order 14 Rule 2 CPC lays down that where issues both of law and of fact arise in same suit, and the court is of the opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that issue first if that issue relates to (a) the jurisdiction of the court, or (b) a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force. The provisions of this Rule came up for consideration before this Court in Major S.S. Khanna v. Brig. F.J. Dillon [AIR 1964 SC 497] and it was held as under: (AIR pp. 502-03, para 18 : SCR p.21) '18. ….Under Order 14 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on the issues of law only, it shall try those issues first, and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of issues of fact until after the issues of law have been determined. The jurisdiction to try issues of law apart from issues of fact may be exercised only where in the opinion of the court the whole suit may be disposed of on the issues of law alone, but the Code confers no jurisdiction upon the court to try a suit on mixed issues of law and fact as preliminary issues. Normally all the issues in a suit should be tried by the court; not to do so, especially when the decision on issues even of law depend upon the decision of issues of fact, would result in a lopsided trial of the suit.’ Though there has been a slight amendment in the language of Order 14 Rule 2 CPC by the amending Act, 1976 but the principle enunciated in the abovequoted decision still holds good and there can be no departure from the principle that the Code confers no jurisdiction upon the court to try a suit on mixed issues of law and fact as a preliminary issue and where the decision on issue of law depends upon decision of fact, it cannot be tried as a preliminary issue.” 18. Further, the suit of the plaintiff has been dismissed on the ground of its undervaluation. Order 7 Rule 11(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure provides 9 that:- “11. Rejection of plaint.─The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:─ xxxxxx xxxxxx (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;” 19. It is quite vivid from the provision of Order 7 Rule 11 (c) of the CPC that if the plaintiff failed to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by court, the plaint shall be rejected, meaning thereby before rejecting the plaint or dismissal of the suit an opportunity should have been provided to the plaintiff to rectify the deficit stamp duty as required under the law. In the present case, no opportunity was provided to the plaintiff to rectify the deficit stamp duty or to correct the value of the suit. 20. In the matter of Tajender Singh Ghambhir Vs. Gurpreet Singh and others, (2014) 10 SCC 702, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 8 that:- “8. The scheme of the above provisions is clear. It casts duty on the court to determine as to whether or not court fee paid on the plaint is deficient and if the court fee is found to be deficient, then give an opportunity to the plaintiff to make up such deficiency within the time that may be fixed by the court. The important thread that runs through sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 6 of the 1870 Act is that for payment of court fee, time must be granted by the court and if despite the order of the court, deficient court fee is not paid, then consequence as provided therein must follow.” 21. From the aforesaid legal proposition and also under the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court as well as the first appellate Court has committed an error by deciding the issue of limitation as a preliminary issue and decided the same without recording evidence of the parties and further that without affording any opportunity to correct the valuation of the suit and to pay deficit 10 court fee the suit has been dismissed which are against the above stated proposition of law and the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned courts below cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the substantial question of law framed in the present second appeal are answered in favour of the plaintiff. The impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court are hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned trial Court to decide the case after framing of issues involved in the case and decide the issues after recording evidence of the parties in accordance with law. The second appeal is allowed. 22. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 07-01-2026. 23. The parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Aadil