FA-472-2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.472 OF 2026 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3354 OF 2026 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.472 OF 2026 1. Mrs. Angeline Babu Nimma Aged 71 yrs. Occupation : Tutor 2. Mr. Gilory Anthony Misquitta Aged 68 yrs. Occupation: Service 3. Mrs. Racheal Hillary Misquitta Aged 60 yrs. Occupation: Housewife 4. Mr. Shaun Hillary Misquitta Aged 37 yrs. Occupation : service 5. Mr. Regan Hillary Misquitta Aged 36 yrs. Occupation: service All 1 to 5 residing at House No.52 St. Francis Road, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai-400 056 6. Mr. Troy Thomos Gowria Aged 48 yrs. Occupation: Jobless 7. Ms. Olinka Thomos Gowria (since deceased) died on 27-01-2026 8. Mr. Trevor Thomos Gowria Aged 54 yrs. Occupation : service 9. Mrs. Priya Maruti Patil Aged 56 yrs. Occupation : service SQ Pathan 1/15 2026:BHC-AS:30618 FA-472-2026.doc All 6 to 9 Indian adult Inhabitants residing at House No.126. St. Braz Road, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai-400 056 …Appellants (Org. PlaintiCs) Versus 1. The Collector MSD, Mumbai State of Maharashtra, 10th Floor, Administrative Building 2. SRA (Slum Rehabilitation Authority), SRA Building, Anant Kanekar Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 3. MCGM Corporate body functioning under MCGM Act, K/East Ward, MCGM Building, Azad Road, Gundavali, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 069 4. Panom Developer LLP, Partnership Firm Regd. under the LLP Act, 2008 Through their authorized Signatory No. (1) Bharat J.Patel, (2) Dilip C. Modi & (3) P.U.C. Shah and Also attorneys of Defendant No.5 to 18 Nainesh Gandhi, K.R.D.N. Estate, 2nd Floor, OC Aarey Road, Goregaon (East) 5. Mr. Lalit Ramdev Mishra Age & Occ. Not Known 6. Atmadev Ramdev Mishra Age & Occ. Not Known 7. Mr. Dinesh Ramdev Mishra Age & Occ. Not Known 8. Mr. Ashok Ramdev Mishra Age & Occ. Not Known 9. Mr. Anil Ramdev Mishra Age & Occ. Not Known SQ Pathan 2/15 FA-472-2026.doc 10. Mr. Lolarkh Matadin Mishra Age & Occ. Not Known 11. Mr. Ramesh Matadin Mishra Age & Occ.: Not Known 12. Mr. Vasant Matadin Mishra Age & Occ. Not Known 13. Mrs. Durgadevi Lalji Pandey Age & Occ. Not Known 14. Mrs. Kamladevi Vishwanath Dubey Age & Occ. Not Known 15. Mrs. Gulabdevi Maheshnarayan Pandey Age & Occ. Not Known 16. Mr. Rajkumar Ramkrishna Tiwari Age & Occ. Not Known 17. Mrs. Shivdevi Radheyshyam Shukla Age & Occ. Not Known 18. Mrs. Usha Kripashankar Tiwari Serial No. 3 to 16 residing at Bhagvanji Building, 40-A Room No.5 & 6 Old Nagardas Road, Andheri(East) Mumbai-400 069 ...Respondents (Org. Defendants) —————— Mr. Suresh K. Mali for the Appellants/Applicants Mr. Amogh Singh i/b Mr. Vijay Sharma for the Respondent No.4 —————— CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : JULY 27, 2026 JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. Admit. By consent, taken up for Hnal hearing forthwith. SQ Pathan 3/15 FA-472-2026.doc 2. The First Appeal is at the instance of the original PlaintiCs being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated 16th January 2026 passed by the City Civil Court at Borivali Division at Dindoshi, Mumbai, in Notice of Motion No. 3570 of 2018 under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short `the CPC’), rejecting the plaint in L.C. Suit No. 2111 of 2014. 3. L.C. Suit No. 2111 of 2014 was Hled seeking a declaration that the Defendants cannot interfere in the use and occupation of the suit premises, create third-party rights, and cannot submit the property for development, obtain consent of tenants/occupants in respect of the suit premises, i.e., land bearing Old Survey No. 32, Hissa No. 14, of Revenue Village Vile Parle, Taluka Andheri, Mumbai, admeasuring about 547.8 square metres. The plaint also sought a declaration that the Deed dated 11th April 1963 and the Agreement for Sale dated 9th June 1960 between Anthony Joseph Misquitta and Matadin Mangal Mishra and Ramdev Mangal Mishra are null and void and consequently, the Conveyance Deed registered with respect to Schedule IV is also null and void, and the Defendants do not get any right in the suit property and permanent injunction. 4. An application under Order VII Rule 11 was Hled by the Defendant No. 4 seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(b) and (d). In the aJdavit in support of the Notice of Motion, it was SQ Pathan 4/15 FA-472-2026.doc pleaded that the suit is barred by the law of limitation, as the PlaintiCs are challenging documents executed in the year 1963, and the pleadings in the plaint show that the PlaintiCs had knowledge of the said documents since more than 17 years. An objection was also raised on the ground of valuation. 5. The application came to be resisted by the PlaintiCs, contending that the cause of action arose on 20th July 2014 when, on the basis of the appeal dismissal order dated 30th April 2014, the PlaintiCs obtained legal advice to Hle a civil suit. Insofar as the valuation is concerned, it was pleaded that the PlaintiCs have properly valued the suit. It was further pleaded that the suit had been Hled in August 2014 and after a period of four years, the Notice of Motion was Hled seeking dismissal, which is without merit. 6. The Trial Court, by order dated 16th January 2026, framed the necessary issue as to whether, from the statements in the plaint, the suit appears to be barred by law. The Trial Court, upon perusal of the plaint and its annexures, noted that the sum and substance of the PlaintiCs' case is that the Agreement for Sale dated 9th June 1960 and the registered document dated 11th April 1963 do not bear the signature of their father, Anthony Misquitta, and that no consideration was received by their father. It further noted that the PlaintiCs had come up with the case that the documents are forged, by reason of SQ Pathan 5/15 FA-472-2026.doc which Matadin Mishra and Ramdev Mishra did not get a valid title to the suit property, and resultantly neither to Defendant No. 4. It noted the pleadings in paragraph 15 of the plaint that the documents dated 9th June 1960 and 11th April 1963 were examined by a handwriting expert, whose opinion dated 25th September 1997 was that both documents do not bear the signature of Anthony Misquitta and expert opinion appended to the plaint to hold that the PlaintiCs had knowledge that the documents are forged and the right to sue accrued on 25th September 1997. It opined that the legal advice received by the PlaintiCs cannot postpone the cause of action, and accordingly held that the plaint is barred by limitation under Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellants would submit that the PlaintiCs were pursuing proceedings before the revenue authorities and the cause of action accrued on 30th May 2012, when it was ordered by the City Survey OJcer that, for claiming the ownership rights in the suit property, the Civil Court is to be approached. He submits that the opinion obtained by the PlaintiCs in 1997 was only in respect of the forgery and the same cannot constitute cause of action for Hling the suit. He would submit that the entire plaint has to be read, which would show that a fraud has been committed, as on the basis of the forged documents, the suit property has been transferred SQ Pathan 6/15 FA-472-2026.doc Hrst to Matadin Mishra and Ramdev Mishra and thereafter to the Defendant No. 4. He would further submit that the application under Order VII Rule 11 seeking rejection of the plaint came to be Hled after a period of four years by Defendant No. 4 who has no right, title or interest in the suit property. He would further point out pleadings in paragraph 7 of the plaint denying right of Defendant No. 4 in the suit property. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.4 would draw attention of the Court to the pleadings in the plaint, and in particular paragraph 15 of the plaint, which speaks of the opinion having been obtained in the year 1997. He would further point out that the opinion is annexed as Exhibit "J" to the plaint, which makes a reference to the photocopy of the Indenture dated 11th April 1963. He submits that the PlaintiCs were, therefore, aware of the document dated 11th April 1963, in respect of which the relief is now being sought in the year 2014 by the PlaintiCs. He submits that under Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation commences from the date on which the right to sue Hrst accrues and in the present case, as PlaintiCs acquired knowledge of the Deed of 1963, at least in the year 1997, the right to sue Hrst accrued. He submits that, as the bar of limitation is evident on the face of the plaint, the suit has been rightly rejected. In support, he relies upon the following decisions: SQ Pathan 7/15 FA-472-2026.doc i. Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra)1 ii. Raghwendra Sharan Singh vs. Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead) by LRs2 9. The point which arises for determination is whether the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) as being barred by law of limitation. 10. It is well settled that, for the purpose of adjudicating an application under Order VII Rule 11, it is only the averments in the plaint and the documents annexed to the plaint which are germane. The plaint has to be read in a meaningful manner in order to ascertain whether it is barred by law, which includes the law of limitation. The substantive relief sought by the PlaintiCs was a declaration that the registered Sale Deed dated 11th April 1963 and the Agreement for Sale dated 9th June 1960 between Anthony Joseph Misquitta and Matadin Mangal Mishra and Ramdev Mangal Mishra are null and void. The other reliefs were consequential to the grant of the declaration about the indentures being null and void. The case set forth in the plaint is that the PlaintiCs are the legal heirs of Anthony Joseph Misquitta, who owned the suit property through his predecessors. Paragraph 7 of the plaint pleads about the Agreement for Sale dated 26th May 1960, alleged to have been signed and executed by the PlaintiCs' father on 1 (2020) 7 SCC 366 2 Civil Appeal/2960/2019 decided on 13/03/2019 SQ Pathan 8/15 FA-472-2026.doc 9th June 1960 in favour of Matadin Mangal Mishra and Ramdev Mangal Mishra, which is a forged and fabricated document and consequently, the execution of the conveyance by Defendants Nos. 5 to 18 in respect of the suit premises is null and void. It is pleaded that the Defendants succeeded before the Konkan Division Commissioner on the basis of the Conveyance Deed dated 13th January 2011 and thereafter, the PlaintiCs have approached the Civil Court for appropriate order and declaration that the registered Deed dated 11th April 1963, the Agreement dated 9th June 1960 and the Conveyance Deed dated 13th January 2011 are null and void. Paragraph 15 of the plaint reads as under: “15. The plaintiCs state that since they did not have the copy of the conveyance Deed back then. But along with the copy of the index II, which contained the forged signature of Mr. Anthony Joseph Misquitta, the plaintiCs went ahead and had appointed a handwriting Expert Mr. Mahesh Wagh, Examiner of Document, Addl. Chief State Examiner of Document, CID having his address at 15-H Ambe Wadi, Girgaum Road, Mumbai :- 400 004, to verify the signature on the said document i.e. the agreement for sale dated 9th June 1960 and the deed of conveyance dated 11th April 1963 Mr. Wagh after perusing many documents having signature of Mr. Anthony Joseph Misquitta has given his written opinion dated 25th September, 1997. Annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit “J” is the copy of the said opinion given by Mr. Mahesh Wagh.” 11. The cause of action is pleaded in paragraph 45 to have arisen on 20th July 2014, when the PlaintiCs obtained legal advice that the SQ Pathan 9/15 FA-472-2026.doc revenue record would not suJce and that a Civil Suit was required to be Hled. To the plaint is annexed the opinion of the handwriting expert dated 25th September 1997, which is referred to in paragraph 15 of the plaint. The opinion records that the expert had examined the questioned signatures of Anthony Joseph Misquitta on the xerox copy of the Indenture dated 11th April 1963 and, upon comparison with the standard signatures, was of the opinion that the questioned signature was not written by the writer of the standard signatures. It is, therefore, the PlaintiCs' own case that a photocopy of the Indenture dated 11th April 1963 was available with them and was submitted to the handwriting expert, who gave his opinion in the year 1997. The execution of the Indenture of 1963 was, therefore, within the knowledge of the PlaintiCs in the year 1997. 12. The pleadings in the plaint is that the father of Defendants Nos. 5 to 18, i.e., the legal heirs of Matadin Mishra and Ramdev Mishra, had prepared forged and fabricated documents and got them registered on 11th April 1963, who did not have any right in the suit premises and as the Defendant No. 4 claims through Defendants Nos. 5 to 18, Defendant No. 4 also does not have any right, title or interest in the suit premises. The pleadings of forgery are based on the expert opinion obtained in the year 1997. The relief sought is a declaration that the deeds are forged and fabricated. Therefore, the limitation SQ Pathan 10/15 FA-472-2026.doc under Article 58 of Limitation Act, 1963 is triggered when the right to sue Hrst accrued. Article 58 uses the expression “Hrst accrued”, which would be the date of acquiring knowledge of existence of the alleged forged documents. 13. The documents of 1960, 1963 and 2011 are sought to be challenged in the year 2014 based on an illusory cause of action of legal advice. Before this Court, the submission canvassed was that the cause of action had arisen upon the order passed by the City Survey OJcer directing the PlaintiCs to approach the Civil Court for adjudication of their civil rights in respect of the suit premises. It is not the order of the survey oJcer which would give rise to a cause of action to the PlaintiCs to Hle the suit, but the knowledge of the Deed of 1963, in the year 1997, which would trigger the period of limitation. The suit, which has been Hled in the year 2014, is ex facie barred by limitation upon a reading of the plaint and the documents appended thereto. 14. It is well settled that an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC can be Hled at any stage of the proceedings. It is also no answer to say that the Defendant No. 4 had no right to Hle the application, as the Defendant No. 4 claims title through the Deed of Conveyance which is sought to be assailed by the PlaintiCs and Defendant No.4 has been impleaded as a party. SQ Pathan 11/15 FA-472-2026.doc 15. In the case of Nusli Neville Wadia v. Ivory Properties & Ors.3, one of the issues which was considered by the three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court was regarding limitation being a mixed question of law and fact in the context of provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. It was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that it cannot be laid down as a proposition of law under Order 7 Rule 11(d) that a plaint cannot be rejected as barred by limitation. It further held that it is permissible to do so in a case where the plaint averment itself indicates the cause of action to be barred by law of limitation and no further evidence is required to adjudicate the issue. It noted that the plaint has to be rejected, if any law bars it as per the averments made in the plaint. 16. In the case of Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in paragraph 23.14 that the power under Order VII Rule 11 may be exercised by the Court at any stage of the suit. It further held in paragraphs 25, 26, 27 and 28 as under: “25. The Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes a time-limit for the institution of all suits, appeals, and applications. Section 2(j) deHnes the expression "period of limitation" to mean the period of limitation prescribed in the Schedule for suits, appeals or applications. Section 3 lays down that every suit instituted after the prescribed period, shall be dismissed even though limitation may not have been set up as a 3 (2020) 6 SCC 557 SQ Pathan 12/15 FA-472-2026.doc defence. If a suit is not covered by any speciHc article, then it would fall within the residuary article. 26. Articles 58 and 59 of the Schedule to the 1963 Act, prescribe the period of limitation for Hling a suit where a declaration is sought, or cancellation of an instrument, or rescission of a contract, which reads as under: “Description of suit Period of limitation Time from which period begins to run 58. To obtain any other declaration. Three years When the right to sue Hrst accrues. 59. To cancel or set aside an instrument or decree or for the rescission of a contract. Three years When the facts entitling the plaintiC to have the instrument or decree cancelled or set aside or the contract rescinded Hrst become known to him.” The period of limitation prescribed under Articles 58 and 59 of the 1963 Act is three years, which commences from the date when the right to sue Hrst accrues. 27. In Khatri Hotels (P) Ltd. v. Union of India-(2011) 9 SCC 126, this Court held that the use of the word "Hrst" between the words "sue" and "accrued", would mean that if a suit is based on multiple causes of action, the period of limitation will begin to run from the date when the right to sue Hrst accrues. That is, if there are successive violations of the right, it would not give rise to a fresh cause of action, and the suit will be liable to be dismissed, if it is beyond the period of limitation counted from the date when the right to sue Hrst accrued. 28. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Gurdev Singh-(1991) 4 SCC 1 : 1991 SCC (L and S) 1082, held that the Court must examine the plaint and determine when the right to sue Hrst accrued to the plaintiC, and whether on the assumed facts, the plaint is within time. The words "right to sue" mean the right to seek relief by means of legal SQ Pathan 13/15 FA-472-2026.doc proceedings. The right to sue accrues only when the cause of action arises. The suit must be instituted when the right asserted in the suit is infringed, or when there is a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe such right by the defendant against whom the suit is instituted. Order 7 Rule 11(d) provides that where a suit appears from the averments in the plaint to be barred by any law, the plaint shall be rejected.” 17. Applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court to the facts of the present case, the PlaintiCs have pleaded that in respect of the Indenture dated 11th April 1963, the PlaintiCs had obtained the handwriting expert's written opinion on 25th September 1997. It is not the obtaining of legal advice in the year 2014 which would constitute cause of action for Hling the suit, but the knowledge of the document being a forged document on 25th September 1997 which infringes the PlaintiCs’ right claimed in the suit property and gives rise to cause of action. By pleading an illusory cause of action of obtaining legal advice, the suit has been Hled in an attempt to overcome the bar of limitation. 18. The pleadings in the plaint make it clear that the suit is barred by the law of limitation, as it seeks to challenge the Indentures of 1960 and 1963 in the year 2014. The period of three years for the purpose of limitation will have to be computed from the date of knowledge of the PlaintiCs, i.e., in the year 1997. The suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. SQ Pathan 14/15 FA-472-2026.doc 19. The Trial Court has examined the pleadings in the plaint, the documents produced, and, in particular, the expert opinion dated 25th September 1997, to hold that the right to sue Hrst accrued to the PlaintiCs on 25th September 1997, and the cause of action arose on 25th September 1997. The Trial Court has rightly held that the suit is barred by limitation and rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC. 20. In light of the discussion above, the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC, being barred by limitation. Resultantly, the First Appeal fails and stands dismissed. 21. Interim Application does not survive for consideration and is disposed of. [SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.] SQ Pathan 15/15 Signed by: Sanjay A. Mandawgad Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 27/07/2026 14:50:33