Case Note & Summary
The plaintiff, Usha Ramrao Bhojane, filed a suit seeking a declaration that she is the adopted daughter of the late Laxman Shegaonkar and the late Yamunabai Shegaonkar, and consequently, a share in the estate of Laxman. The defendants, including Mangala Shivdas Dandekar and others, filed a Notice of Motion under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint on the grounds that the suit was barred by limitation and did not disclose a cause of action. The court examined the plaint allegations, which stated that the plaintiff was adopted at the age of 3 or 4 years and that the adoption was evidenced by a registered adoption deed. The plaintiff claimed that she came to know about the adoption only after the death of her adoptive mother in 2012 when she found the adoption deed. The defendants argued that the suit was filed in 2014, beyond the three-year limitation period from the date of adoption or from the death of Laxman in 1995. The court held that the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and cannot be decided summarily under Order VII Rule 11(d). The plaint disclosed a cause of action and raised triable issues regarding the validity of adoption and the date of knowledge. The court dismissed the Notice of Motion, allowing the suit to proceed to trial.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC - Limitation - The court considered whether the suit for declaration of adoption and share in estate was barred by limitation. Held that the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and cannot be decided in a summary manner under Order VII Rule 11(d) without a full trial. The plaint disclosed a cause of action and the application for rejection was dismissed. (Paras 1-23) B) Adoption - Validity - Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 - The plaintiff claimed to be the adopted daughter of the deceased. The court noted that the validity of adoption is a triable issue and cannot be determined at the stage of rejection of plaint. (Paras 2-10) C) Limitation - Article 58 of Limitation Act, 1963 - The court held that the period of limitation for a declaratory suit is three years from the date when the right to sue first accrues. However, whether the suit is barred by limitation depends on facts to be proved at trial. (Paras 11-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaint should be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on the grounds that it is barred by limitation and does not disclose a cause of action.
Final Decision
The Notice of Motion No.437 of 2015 is dismissed. The plaint is not rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. The suit to proceed to trial.
Law Points
- Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC
- Rejection of Plaint
- Cause of Action
- Limitation
- Adoption
- Hindu Succession Act
- 1956
- Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act
