Case Note & Summary
The matter arises from an Interim Application filed by Defendant No.1, Mantri Building Condominium, seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, on the ground that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. The underlying suit was filed by three plaintiffs, children of late Sharad Madhavrao Gangla, claiming that their father, without their knowledge or consent, executed a Declaration under Form-A of the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970 on 1 October 2004, multiple Deeds of Apartment in November 2004 and October 2005, and Deeds of Transfer on 1 February 2005, purporting to convert tenancies into ownership and alienating joint family property. The plaintiffs assert that they became entitled to shares in the ancestral property by birth and only learned of the impugned documents in January 2024 upon receiving a draft Development Agreement. They sought declarations that the Declaration, Deeds of Apartment, Deeds of Transfer, and a subsequent Development Agreement dated 28 July 2024 are void and not binding on them. The applicant-defendant contended that the cause of action arose on the dates of execution of the documents, the latest being 1 February 2005, and the suit filed on 28 February 2025 is therefore time-barred. It argued that the matter is governed by Section 109 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which provides a 12-year limitation period from the date of handing over possession, and that possession was contemporaneously transferred with the deeds. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court decisions to assert that registration of instruments constitutes deemed knowledge, thus starting the limitation clock. The plaintiffs opposed the application, maintaining they had no prior knowledge. The court heard arguments and reserved judgment. The provided excerpt does not contain the final decision or the court’s analysis and order; thus, the outcome of the application remains undetermined based on the available text.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit is barred by limitation under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, given that the declaration and deeds challenged were executed in 2004-2005 and the suit was filed in 2025?
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (10) 58
Interim Application No. 1949 of 2025 in Suit (Lodging) No. 6763 of 2025
Mr. Kunal Kumbhat for Plaintiffs; Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar with Mr. Anish Karande, Mr. Arpit Solanki, Mr. Siddharth Bafna, Mr. Pulkit Tiwari i/b Integrum Legal for Applicant; Mr. Bhavin Gala with Mr. Hitesh Solanki i/b Manoj & Ashok Associates for Defendant No.32
Mantri Building Condominium
Neeraj Sharad Gangla & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Interim Application seeking rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground of limitation in a suit for declarations that documents executed by father without consent of children are void.
Remedy Sought
Defendant No.1-Condominium seeks rejection of the plaint as being barred by limitation.
Filing Reason
Plaintiffs allege that their father, without their knowledge or consent, executed a declaration and deeds of apartment/transfer converting tenancies into ownership and giving away joint family property, and they only discovered these in January 2024. Defendant contends suit is time-barred.
Issues
Whether the suit is barred by limitation as the challenged declaration and deeds were executed between 2004 and 2005, and the suit was filed in 2025?
Whether limitation under Section 109 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies, or Article 59?
Whether the registration of documents constitutes deemed knowledge to the plaintiffs, thereby starting the limitation period?
Submissions/Arguments
Applicant-Defendant No.1 argues that cause of action arose on dates of execution of the declaration (1 October 2004) and deeds (latest 1 February 2005), and the suit filed in 2025 is time-barred. The suit is governed by Section 109 of the Limitation Act, and possession was handed over with execution of deeds, so limitation expired 12 years thereafter. The documents are registered, thus deemed knowledge dates back to registration.
Plaintiffs in reply presumably argue that they came to know only in January 2024, so limitation did not start earlier. (Specific arguments from reply not detailed in provided text, but noted they filed affidavit-in-reply).
Judgment Excerpts
Defendant No.1-Condominium has filed the present Application seeking rejection of Plaint under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
According to Applicant-Defendant No.1, the Suit is hopelessly barred by limitation as the same challenges Declaration dated 1 October 2004 and Deeds of Apartment dated 4 November 2004, 6 November 2004, 10 November 2004 and 6 October 2005 and Deeds of Transfer dated 1 February 2005.
He would submit that Plaintiff’s case, as pleaded in the Plaint, is that the joint family property is alienated by their father without their consent or knowledge. That therefore the Suit, at best, would be governed by the provisions of Section 109 of the Limitation Act, 1963 under which the limitation for filing the suit is 12 years from the date of handing over of possession of the alienated property to the alienee.
That therefore the Suit ought to have been filed within a period of 12 years from the date of execution of either Declaration dated 1 October 2004 or Deeds of Apartment dated 4 November 2004, 6 November 2004, 10 November 2004 and 6 October 2005.
He would rely upon judgment of the Apex Court in Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust and Others Versus Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle and Another in support of his contention that when a document is registered, the date of registration becomes the date of deemed knowledge.
Procedural History
The suit was filed on 28 February 2025. Defendant No.1 filed Interim Application No. 1949 of 2025 for rejection of plaint. Plaintiffs filed affidavit-in-reply. Court heard arguments and reserved judgment on 10 October 2025, pronounced on 17 October 2025.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970: Form-A
- Limitation Act, 1963: Section 109, Article 59
- Civil Procedure Code, 1908: Order VII Rule 11
