Plaintiff's Challenge To Registered Will Is Barred By Limitation; Supreme Court Restores Trial Court's Rejection Of Plaint

A Bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N. Bhatti heard an appeal arising from an SLP and considered whether a civil suit challenging a registered will and codicil was barred by limitation and liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The appeal arose from an order of the Gujarat High Court which had set aside the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad's rejection of the plaint and directed restoration of Suit No.1758/2017 for adjudication on merits.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment dated 08.02.2024 and restored the trial court's order dated 23.10.2018 rejecting the plaint as barred by limitation under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. The Court held that, on the plaint's own averments, the cause of action first arose on 04.02.2014 (registration of the will), further arose on 20.09.2014 (registration of the codicil) and finally on 21.10.2014 (death of the testator), while the suit was instituted only on 21.11.2017, beyond the three‑year period under Article 58 of the Limitation Act. The Court emphasised that "it is obligatory upon the court to dismiss the suit if it is, on the face of it, barred by limitation." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In the present case, the plaintiff not only categorically states that he acquired knowledge of the Will and the Codicil in the first week of November, 2014 but also that the cause of action for the suit first arose on 04.02.2014 and lastly on 21.10.2014. The suit was filed on 21.11.2017. As such on the own averments of the plaintiff, the suit was instituted beyond limitation attracting Order VII Rule 11 (d) CPC."

Background: The plaintiff, Hitesh P. Sanghvi, sued four family members seeking a declaration that a Will dated 04.02.2014 and a Codicil dated 20.09.2014 executed by his late father, Pramod Kesurdas Sanghavi, were null and void, and sought consequential reliefs including a permanent injunction. The plaint alleged that the father died on 21.10.2014 and that the plaintiff learned of the Will and Codicil in the first week of November, 2014. Defendants moved under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint on the ground that the suit was not instituted within the period of limitation; similar applications were filed by multiple defendants.

The trial court, on plain reading of the plaint, held that the cause of action first accrued on 04.02.2014 and that, even counting from the plaintiff's stated knowledge in early November 2014, the suit filed on 21.11.2017 was filed after the three‑year limitation period under Article 58 of the Limitation Act. The trial court therefore allowed the defendants' applications and rejected the plaint. The High Court reversed, reasoning that parties should be permitted to lead evidence on limitation and that some reliefs sought were independent. The Supreme Court disagreed, finding that the plaint itself contained admissions that fixed the accrual dates and that no evidence was required to establish that the suit was ex facie barred. The Court relied on Section 3 of the Limitation Act and held that "every suit instituted after the period prescribed under the Act shall be dismissed" and that once the principal relief was time‑barred, ancillary reliefs could not survive. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order and restored the trial court's rejection of the plaint as barred by limitation.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 485 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 13459 of 2024) Case Title: Nikhila Divyang Mehta & Anr. v. Hitesh P. Sanghvi & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Shri Gaurav Agarwal, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Shri Bhadrish S. Raju, Advocate