TIER-1

  Shubham Budhiraja [1] A filed a suit for declaration against B seeking will & codicil of their father to be null & void. The B filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 seeking rejection of plaint on basis that plaint was barred by limitation. The Ld. Trial Court allowed the application but High Court reversed the findings. The Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the application and held as under: [2]   1.      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.   2.      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 dat...

  Shubham Budhiraja [1]   A (Purchaser of suit property) filed a suit for permanent injunction against B seeking retainment against B for creating 3 rd party rights in respect of land in question. The basis of suit was an agreement to sell entered between A&C. B filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 for rejection of plaint on basis that the agreement to sell gives no right to A. They are not the owners. The Trial Court rejected the application. The High Court also dismissed it in revision jurisdiction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the Order 7 Rule 11 and held as under [2] :   1.     The protection under Section 53-A is not available against a third party who may have an adversarial claim against the vendor. Therefore, unless and until the sale deed is executed, the purchaser is not vested with any right, title or interest in the property except to the limited extent of seeking specific performance from his vendor. An agreement for s...