Slept Over His Right: MP High Court Throws Out 30-Year-Old Land Dispute At The Threshold

Can a person challenge sale deeds executed three decades ago by claiming he learnt about them only recently? The Madhya Pradesh High Court has answered in the negative, holding that a suit filed in 2024 against 1994 sale deeds was barred by limitation because the plaintiff’s own pleadings showed he knew the key facts back in 2015.

Justice Deepak Khot, sitting at Jabalpur, allowed a civil revision filed by Raghvendra Singh and ordered rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), ending the suit at the threshold.

The suit was filed by Jitendra Singh in 2024 before the Civil Judge-I, Junior Division, Rampur Baghelan (RCSA-118/2024), seeking a declaration and permanent injunction over land in Village Richhari, Tehsil Rampur Baghelan, District Satna. He asked the court to declare revenue entries in the defendants’ favour void, to strike down two sale deeds dated 30.04.1994 and 15.07.1994 executed by the late Sher Mohammad, and to declare him owner and Bhumiswami of Survey No. 525, measuring 6.47 acres.

The trial court rejected Raghvendra Singh’s Order 7 Rule 11 application on 12.12.2025. He then approached the High Court under Section 115 CPC.

According to the plaint, the plaintiff discovered in 2015, when he wanted to sell his land, that Survey No. 525 had been subdivided and that most of it stood in the defendants’ names. He then sold the portion recorded in his name through a registered deed dated 04.02.2015. He claimed he obtained certified copies of the sale deeds only on 07.06.2024 and sued on 06.08.2024.

Why the “fresh knowledge” argument failed

The High Court was not convinced. It noted that the plaintiff himself had pleaded knowledge of the subdivision and the defendants’ entries in 2015, while the mutation in their favour dated back to 2000-2001.

The Court observed: “It is impracticable to believe that the respondent/plaintiff did not obtain the revenue records for almost nine years i.e. from 2015 to 2024 and that only after obtaining the said revenue records the suit was filed.”

It added that the certified copies were applied for only on 02.06.2024. In strong words, the Court held: “The respondent/plaintiff slept over his right and woke up from his deep slumber only in the year 2024.”

Relying on Supreme Court rulings in Dahiben, N. Asha Devi and Shobha Vasant Bhoir, the Court concluded that the plaintiff had created a “fictitious” cause of action just to bring the suit within limitation. Since the challenge came “after 30 years”, the suit was ex facie time-barred and “cannot be allowed to be prosecuted further just to harass the defendants.”

The plaintiff had argued that the plaint must be read as a whole, that limitation was a mixed question of fact and law, and that, as a non-executant, he need not seek cancellation of the deeds. He cited several Supreme Court judgments, including Biswanath Banik, Chhotanben, Daya Singh, P. Kumarakurubaran, Karam Singh and Hussain Ahmed Choudhury.

The Court distinguished each of them. Reading the plaint as a whole, it said, “does not preclude the Court from considering the specific admissions” in it. In Chhotanben, the suit was filed within two days of the defendants’ refusal, while in Daya Singh the right to sue arose from a clear threat shortly before filing. Karam Singh involved a suit within three years of mutation, with a prayer for possession that the present plaintiff never sought. Hussain Ahmed Choudhury, it said, dealt with Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, not exemption from limitation. The Court also held that late procurement of certified copies cannot “automatically extend or revive the period of limitation.”

Allowing the revision, the Court set aside the 12.12.2025 order, allowed the Order 7 Rule 11 application and dismissed the suit as barred by limitation.

Advocate Ramanath Dwivedi appeared for the petitioner, Advocate Ayush Tiwari for respondent No.1/plaintiff, and Panel Lawyer Sandeep Vyas for the State.

Case Title: Raghvendra Singh vs. Jitendra Singh and Others

Judgment Date: November 3, 2026

Bench: Justice Deepak Khot