Authority: High Court at Calcutta (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Original Side)

Order Date: September 10, 2026

Case Overview

  • Appeal No. APDT 21 of 2026 (with CS/107/2016 IA No. GA/1/2026) filed by Kalimata Infratech Limited (appellant) against Maheshwari Devi & Ors. (respondents), including respondents Nos. 3‑8 and Nos. 15‑20.
  • Original suit was filed on March 18, 2016 seeking (a) declaration that a deed of gift dated August 1, 1948 and related title documents are false, fabricated and do not convey any interest; (b) cancellation of those documents; (c) delivery of documents relating to the immovable property; and (d) a perpetual injunction.
  • The suit concerns immovable property situated at No. 2/1 Loudon Street, Kolkata – 700016.
  • Historical chain of title cited in the plaint:
  • May 17 1940 – Sale by Justice Satish Chandra to Charubala Devi (registered deed of sale).
  • September 6 1985 – Will of Charubala Devi bequeathing the property to her daughter Aparna Singh; probate obtained on October 25 1990.
  • July 15 2005 – Deed of conveyance by Aparna Singh to Defendant No. 26 (registered on January 10 2011).
  • March 8 2011 – Deed of conveyance executed by Defendant No. 26 in favour of the appellant.
  • Deed of gift dated August 1 1948 and a deed of lease (certified copy dated September 21 2004) are also relied upon.
  • Leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865 was obtained on January 2 2023, but the plaint was presented on March 18 2016.
  • The appellant argued that the suit cannot be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 on the ground of abuse of process because the filing date for limitation purposes is the date of presentation in the Centralized Filing Section, per Chapter XXXIXA of the Original Side Rules (effective September 5 1996) which contains non‑obstante clauses giving it primacy over other rules.
  • The appellant relied on several precedents: Union of India v. G.M. Kokil (1984), Shridhar Issar v. Bharnobari Tea & Industries Ltd (2012), Lakhsmi Commercial Bank Ltd v. Bengal National Textile Mills Ltd (1992), Chhotanben & Another v. Kiritbhai Jalkrushna Bhai Thakkar (2018), Daliben Valjibhai v. Prajapati Kodarbhai (2024), B.S. Lalitha v. Bhuvanesh (2026), Liverpool & London S.P & I Association Ltd v. M.V. Sea Success I (2004), Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust v. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle (2024), Manjula & Others v. D.A. Srinivas (2026), and N. Asha Devi v. R. Aravind Kumar & Another (unreported, Aug 17 2026).
  • The respondents argued that the suit is barred by limitation under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, that the appellant had constructive notice of the deed of gift through registration (Section 3 Explanation I of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882), and that the appellant’s averments regarding knowledge of the deed on October 29 2013 are false. They highlighted that Alok Agarwal, a director of Aarya Industrial Products Private Ltd (whose shareholding is wholly held by him and his wife), affirmed the plaint; he was a director of the appellant until January 5 2011 and had knowledge of the deed of gift.
  • The court examined the interplay between Chapter VII Rule 4 (endorsements on a plaint presented before the Court) and Chapter XXXIXA (mandatory presentation before the Centralized Filing Section). It held, following Shridhar Issar and G.M. Kokil, that the non‑obstante clauses give Chapter XXXIXA primacy, and that limitation stops running the moment the plaint is filed in the Centralized Filing Section.
  • The court noted that the plaint was indeed presented on March 18 2016 and that the later grant of leave on January 2 2023 does not restart limitation nor constitute abuse of process.
  • Regarding the applicability of Order VII Rule 11, the court reiterated that averments in the plaint must be taken as true for the purpose of determining whether a cause of action is disclosed (Chhotanben, Daliben Valjibhai, Lalitha). Defence on the merits is irrelevant at this stage (Liverpool & London). The court also cited Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust that a suit barred by limitation may be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11, but only when the limitation issue is not a triable question of fact.
  • The court concluded that the limitation issue in the present case is a mixed question of fact and law and remains a triable issue requiring evidence; therefore, the plaint cannot be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11(a) or (d).

Final Outcome

  • The judgment dated June 10 2026 rejecting the plaint is set aside.
  • CS 307 of 2016 is remanded for hearing on merits.
  • The issue of limitation is kept open for determination at trial.
  • No order as to costs was made.

Topics: Property Law, Civil Procedure