Impleadment - Limitation

I.               TIME BARRED BY LIMITATION U/S 21 LIMITATION ACT R/W O1.R.10(5) CPC 

Ramti Devi v. UoI 1995 1SCC 198 ¶2

"As seen, when the appellant had knowledge of it on 29-1-1949 itself the limitation began to run from that date and the three years' limitation has hopelessly been barred on the date when the suit was filed….   …recitals of the documents would show that the sale deed was executed for valuable consideration to discharge pre-existing debts and it is a registered document. Apart from the prohibition under Section 92 of the Evidence Act to adduce oral evidence to contradict the terms of the recital therein, no issue in this behalf on the voidity of the sale deed or its binding nature was raised nor a finding recorded that the sale deed is void under Section 23 of the Contract Act. Pleading itself is not sufficient. Since the appellant is seeking to have the document avoided or cancelled, necessarily, a declaration has to be given by the court in that behalf. Until the document is avoided or cancelled by proper declaration, the duly registered document remains valid and binds the parties. So the suit necessarily has to be laid within three years from the date when the cause of action had occurred. Since the cause of action had arisen on 29-1- 1947, the date on which the sale deed was executed and registered and the suit was filed on 30-7-1966, the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation."

Raghwendra Sharan Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singh, (2020) 16 SCC 601

Relief of declaration to set aside gift deed not prayed for cannot be granted and if such prayer was asked it would have been barred by limitation. ¶7 last lines, and ¶8

 

Pleadings Specific for Fraud required

    Specific pleading to fraud is required and [Afsar Sheikh v Soleman Bibi (1976) 2 SCC 142;  

 the threshold is very high [Narandas Karsondas v S.A Kamtam 1977 3 SCC 247]    

THIRD PARTY AUCTION PURCHASER RIGHTS ARE PROTECTED

Ashwin S. Mehta v. Custodian, (2006) 2 SCC 385	Rights of auction purchaser – Bona fide purchaser for value in auction is on different footing than a decree holder purchasing such property (¶¶ 70-72)
Sadashiv Prasad Singh v. Harendar Singh, (2015) 5 SCC 574	Third party – auction purchaser rights – auction purchaser's rights continues to be protected notwithstanding the underlying decree is set aside. Once sale is confirmed by authority, rights accrue in favour of the auction purchaser and these rights cannot be extinguished unless fraud or collusion is proved .  [¶¶ 17-19 ]

SALE DEED IS PRESUMED TO BE VALID AND NEEDS SEPARATE CANCELLATION

Prem Singh v. Birbal, (2006) 5 SCC 353	Validity of registered deed- See ¶ 16; A registered document is prima facie presumed to be valid in law (¶ 27)
Jamila Begum v. Shami Mohd., (2019) 2 SCC 727	held a registered document carries with it a presumption that it was validly executed and that it is for the party challenging the genuineness of the transaction to show that the transaction is not valid in law. [ See ¶ 16] Thus, the Cour concluded that a revenue Court has to presume the validity and genuineness of a duly registered sale deed. [ ¶ 20 last line ]
Damodhar Narayan Sawale v. Tejrao Bajirao Mhaske, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 566	Court needs to consider the impact of registered sale deed before granting reliefs prayed   [¶13]

No pleading, no relief can be granted

Trojan & Co. Ltd. v. Nagappa Chettiar, (1953) 1 SCC 456	Decision of a plaint cannot be on grounds outside the pleadings, without amendment of the plaint, court was not entitled to grant relied not asked for "It is well settled that the decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties and it is the case pleaded that has to be found. Without an amendment of the plaint, the Court was not entitled to grant the relief not asked for and no prayer was ever made to amend the plaint so as to incorporate in it an alternative case ." See ¶ 38
Chikkathammiah v. Chikkahutchiah, 1976 SCC OnLine Kar 126;   ILR 1976 Kar 1697 : AIR 1977 Kar 99	Defendants raised the objection that suit was not maintainable unless a relief for cancellation of sale deed was asked for. The munsiff court agreed and same was upheld by HC.- that even when the plaintiffs were not a party to sale deed they still had to seek relief for cancellation ( see ¶ 2-4 )
Krishna Priya Ganguly v. University of Lucknow, (1984) 1 SCC 307	When High Court granted relief which the respondent never prayed for, this was reproached by the SC. (i.e issued mandamus to admit student when the prayer was for a writ directing the college to consider him for admission) See ¶ 26
Om Prakash v. Ram Kumar, (1991) 1 SCC 441	A party cannot be granted a relied not claimed, if grant of such relief results in serious prejudice to the interested party and deprive him of rights under statute, (here in action by landlord against tenant, it is necessary that the landlord seeks to enforce that cause of action in the same proceedings by suit at the amendment or by separate proceedings to entitle the landlord to relief on the basis of such cause of action. Principle of moulding relief does not apply here) See  ¶ 4 at pg 445 last 6 lines
Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy, (2008) 4 SCC 594	Suit for declaration and injunction,  prayer for declaration is necessary if the denial of title by the defendant raises doubts on P's property . ¶ 32. civil cases are circumscribed by the rules of pleadings, nature of relief claimed – "predicament of the plaintiffs was brought upon themselves by failing to convert the suit to one for declaration even when the written statement was filed and by not seeking amendment of issues to include an issue of title" [see ¶¶ 13,14] See notes on LiqT. ¶21 also ¶32
Bharat Amratlal Kothari v. Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindhi, (2010) 1 SCC 234.	General Principle of CPC- Court cannot grant relief not prayed for. ""Though the Court has very wide discretion in granting relief, the Court, however, cannot, ignoring and keeping aside the norms and principles governing grant of relief, grant a relief not even prayed for by the petitioner." [¶ 30]
Akella Lalitha v. Konda Hanumantha Rao, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 928	"relief not found on pleadings should not be granted. If a Court considers or grants a relief for which no prayer or pleading was made depriving the respondent of an opportunity to oppose or resist such relief, it would lead to miscarriage of justice." (SLP based on child custody matter under the family law) ¶16-17

Alternative Remedy argument in Appeal

if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner and following any other course is not permissible

The age old principle enshrined in the Latin maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius i.e. if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner and following any other course is not permissible, is squarely attracted. The principle was recently reiterated by the Supreme Court in Selvi J. Jayalalithaa v. State of Karnataka (2014) 2 SCC 401 and in Mackinon Mackenzie and Company Ltd. v. Mackinnon Employees Union (2015) 4 SCC 544. In the latter, it was further held that if the procedure prescribed is not followed, then such act of the authority has to be held to be null and void ab initio in law. The principle was yet again reiterated in Zuari Cement Ltd. v. Regional Director E.S.I.C. Hyderabad (2015) 7 SCC 690.