Fallacy To Make Distinction Between ‘Knowledge’ & ‘Full Knowledge’ When Determining Cause Of Action To Ascertain Limitation: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court restored the decision of the Trial Court, which rejected a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC as it was barred by limitation.
The Supreme Court stated that it is a “complete fallacy” to make any distinction between ‘knowledge’ and ‘full knowledge’ to determine whether the limitation has to run from the date when the cause of action first accrued and not any subsequent date for the cause of action.
The Court set aside the decision of the High Court and restored the decision of the Trial Court which rejected a plaint of the Plaintiff in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC as it was barred by limitation. The plaintiff instituted a suit seeking a declaration that a Will and a Codicil were null and void.
A Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice SVN Bhatti held, “It is clear from the plaint that the prayers made therein are primarily for seeking declaration of the aforesaid Will and Codicil to be null and void as also all actions in pursuance thereof. The relief for permanent injunction is dependent upon the success of the first relief. Therefore, the relief of permanent injunction is simply a consequential relief. The primary relief being for declaring the Will and the Codicil to be null and void.”
Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal represented the Appellants, while Advocate Bhadrish S. Raju appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for the rejection of the plaint, arguing that the suit was barred by limitation. The Trial Court allowed the application and rejected the plaint. However, the High Court reversed this Order, leading to the current appeal.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court stated, “As per the averments made by the plaintiff that he had come to know of the Will and the Codicil in the first week of November, 2014, in view of Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the suit ought to have been filed within three years when the right to sue first accrued. Since the suit was not filed within three years i.e., by the first week of November, 2017, it is patently barred by limitation.”
“The relief of declaration claimed in the suit at hand does not fall under Articles 56 and 57 and, therefore, by necessary implication, Article 58 would stand attracted which provides for a limitation period of three years to obtain any other declaration other than that mentioned under Articles 56 and 57. It provides that for such a declaration, the limitation is three years from the date when the right to sue first accrues,” the Bench clarified.
The Court explained, “The use of the words ‘when the right to sue first accrues’ as mentioned in Article 58 is very relevant and important. It categorically provides that the limitation of three years has to be counted from the date when the right to sue first accrues.”
Consequently, the Court held, “In dealing with the submission, the appellate Court distinguished between ‘having knowledge’ and ‘full knowledge’ to hold that the suit is not barred by limitation as the limitation would reckon from the date of full knowledge. It is a complete fallacy to make any distinction between ‘knowledge’ and ‘full knowledge’. First of all, the limitation has to run from the date when the cause of action first accrued and not any subsequent date for the cause of action.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Nikhila Divyang Mehta & Anr. v. Hitesh P. Sanghvi & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 485)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal; AOR Anushree Prashit Kapadia; Advocates Shivangi Chawla, Shrutika Garg and Pranay Bhardwaj
Respondents: AOR Shivansh Bharatkumar Pandya; Advocate Bhadrish S. Raju, Dhanesh Patel and Sankalp Kumar
