FA-472-2026.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

FIRST APPEAL NO.472 OF 2026

WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3354 OF 2026

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.472 OF 2026

1. Mrs. Angeline Babu Nimma

Aged 71 yrs. Occupation : Tutor

2. Mr. Gilory Anthony Misquitta

Aged 68 yrs. Occupation: Service

3. Mrs. Racheal Hillary Misquitta

Aged 60 yrs. Occupation: Housewife

4. Mr. Shaun Hillary Misquitta

Aged 37 yrs. Occupation : service

5. Mr. Regan Hillary Misquitta

Aged 36 yrs. Occupation: service

All 1 to 5 residing at House No.52 St.

Francis Road, Vile Parle (West),

Mumbai-400 056

6. Mr. Troy Thomos Gowria

Aged 48 yrs. Occupation: Jobless

7. Ms. Olinka Thomos Gowria

(since deceased) died on 27-01-2026

8. Mr. Trevor Thomos Gowria

Aged 54 yrs. Occupation : service

9. Mrs. Priya Maruti Patil

Aged 56 yrs. Occupation : service

SQ Pathan 1/15 2026:BHC-AS:30618

FA-472-2026.doc

All 6 to 9 Indian adult Inhabitants

residing at House No.126. St. Braz Road,

Vile Parle (West), Mumbai-400 056

…Appellants

(Org. Plaintiffs)

Versus

1. The Collector MSD, Mumbai

State of Maharashtra, 10

th

Floor,

Administrative Building

2. SRA (Slum Rehabilitation Authority),

SRA Building, Anant Kanekar Marg,

Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051

3. MCGM

Corporate body functioning under

MCGM Act, K/East Ward, MCGM Building,

Azad Road, Gundavali, Andheri (E),

Mumbai-400 069

4. Panom Developer LLP,

Partnership Firm Regd. under the LLP Act, 2008

Through their authorized Signatory No.

(1) Bharat J.Patel, (2) Dilip C. Modi &

(3) P.U.C. Shah and Also attorneys of Defendant

No.5 to 18 Nainesh Gandhi, K.R.D.N. Estate,

2

nd

Floor, Off Aarey Road, Goregaon (East)

5. Mr. Lalit Ramdev Mishra

Age & Occ. Not Known

6. Atmadev Ramdev Mishra

Age & Occ. Not Known

7. Mr. Dinesh Ramdev Mishra

Age & Occ. Not Known

8. Mr. Ashok Ramdev Mishra

Age & Occ. Not Known

9. Mr. Anil Ramdev Mishra

Age & Occ. Not Known

SQ Pathan 2/15

FA-472-2026.doc

10. Mr. Lolarkh Matadin Mishra

Age & Occ. Not Known

11. Mr. Ramesh Matadin Mishra

Age & Occ.: Not Known

12. Mr. Vasant Matadin Mishra

Age & Occ. Not Known

13. Mrs. Durgadevi Lalji Pandey

Age & Occ. Not Known

14. Mrs. Kamladevi Vishwanath Dubey

Age & Occ. Not Known

15. Mrs. Gulabdevi Maheshnarayan Pandey

Age & Occ. Not Known

16. Mr. Rajkumar Ramkrishna Tiwari

Age & Occ. Not Known

17. Mrs. Shivdevi Radheyshyam Shukla

Age & Occ. Not Known

18. Mrs. Usha Kripashankar Tiwari

Serial No. 3 to 16 residing at

Bhagvanji Building, 40-A Room No.5 & 6

Old Nagardas Road, Andheri(East)

Mumbai-400 069

...Respondents

(Org. Defendants)

——————

Mr. Suresh K. Mali for the Appellants/Applicants

Mr. Amogh Singh i/b Mr. Vijay Sharma for the Respondent No.4

——————

CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.

DATE : JULY 27, 2026

JUDGMENT :

1.Heard. Admit. By consent, taken up for final hearing forthwith.

SQ Pathan 3/15

FA-472-2026.doc

2.The First Appeal is at the instance of the original Plaintiffs being

aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated 16

th

January

2026 passed by the City Civil Court at Borivali Division at Dindoshi,

Mumbai, in Notice of Motion No. 3570 of 2018 under Order VII Rule

11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short `the CPC’),

rejecting the plaint in L.C. Suit No. 2111 of 2014.

3.L.C. Suit No. 2111 of 2014 was filed seeking a declaration that

the Defendants cannot interfere in the use and occupation of the suit

premises, create third-party rights, and cannot submit the property for

development, obtain consent of tenants/occupants in respect of the

suit premises, i.e., land bearing Old Survey No. 32, Hissa No. 14, of

Revenue Village Vile Parle, Taluka Andheri, Mumbai, admeasuring

about 547.8 square metres. The plaint also sought a declaration that

the Deed dated 11

th

April 1963 and the Agreement for Sale dated 9

th

June 1960 between Anthony Joseph Misquitta and Matadin Mangal

Mishra and Ramdev Mangal Mishra are null and void and consequently,

the Conveyance Deed registered with respect to Schedule IV is also null

and void, and the Defendants do not get any right in the suit property

and permanent injunction.

4.An application under Order VII Rule 11 was filed by the

Defendant No. 4 seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule

11(b) and (d). In the affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion, it was

SQ Pathan 4/15

FA-472-2026.doc

pleaded that the suit is barred by the law of limitation, as the Plaintiffs

are challenging documents executed in the year 1963, and the

pleadings in the plaint show that the Plaintiffs had knowledge of the

said documents since more than 17 years. An objection was also raised

on the ground of valuation.

5.The application came to be resisted by the Plaintiffs, contending

that the cause of action arose on 20

th

July 2014 when, on the basis of

the appeal dismissal order dated 30

th

April 2014, the Plaintiffs obtained

legal advice to file a civil suit. Insofar as the valuation is concerned, it

was pleaded that the Plaintiffs have properly valued the suit. It was

further pleaded that the suit had been filed in August 2014 and after a

period of four years, the Notice of Motion was filed seeking dismissal,

which is without merit.

6.The Trial Court, by order dated 16

th

January 2026, framed the

necessary issue as to whether, from the statements in the plaint, the

suit appears to be barred by law. The Trial Court, upon perusal of the

plaint and its annexures, noted that the sum and substance of the

Plaintiffs' case is that the Agreement for Sale dated 9

th

June 1960 and

the registered document dated 11

th

April 1963 do not bear the

signature of their father, Anthony Misquitta, and that no consideration

was received by their father. It further noted that the Plaintiffs had

come up with the case that the documents are forged, by reason of

SQ Pathan 5/15

FA-472-2026.doc

which Matadin Mishra and Ramdev Mishra did not get a valid title to

the suit property, and resultantly neither to Defendant No. 4. It noted

the pleadings in paragraph 15 of the plaint that the documents dated

9

th

June 1960 and 11

th

April 1963 were examined by a handwriting

expert, whose opinion dated 25

th

September 1997 was that both

documents do not bear the signature of Anthony Misquitta and expert

opinion appended to the plaint to hold that the Plaintiffs had

knowledge that the documents are forged and the right to sue accrued

on 25

th

September 1997. It opined that the legal advice received by the

Plaintiffs cannot postpone the cause of action, and accordingly held

that the plaint is barred by limitation under Articles 58 and 59 of the

Limitation Act, 1963.

7.Learned counsel appearing for the Appellants would submit that

the Plaintiffs were pursuing proceedings before the revenue

authorities and the cause of action accrued on 30

th

May 2012, when it

was ordered by the City Survey Officer that, for claiming the ownership

rights in the suit property, the Civil Court is to be approached. He

submits that the opinion obtained by the Plaintiffs in 1997 was only in

respect of the forgery and the same cannot constitute cause of action

for filing the suit. He would submit that the entire plaint has to be

read, which would show that a fraud has been committed, as on the

basis of the forged documents, the suit property has been transferred

SQ Pathan 6/15

FA-472-2026.doc

first to Matadin Mishra and Ramdev Mishra and thereafter to the

Defendant No. 4. He would further submit that the application under

Order VII Rule 11 seeking rejection of the plaint came to be filed after

a period of four years by Defendant No. 4 who has no right, title or

interest in the suit property. He would further point out pleadings in

paragraph 7 of the plaint denying right of Defendant No. 4 in the suit

property.

8.Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.4

would draw attention of the Court to the pleadings in the plaint, and in

particular paragraph 15 of the plaint, which speaks of the opinion

having been obtained in the year 1997. He would further point out that

the opinion is annexed as Exhibit "J" to the plaint, which makes a

reference to the photocopy of the Indenture dated 11

th

April 1963. He

submits that the Plaintiffs were, therefore, aware of the document

dated 11

th

April 1963, in respect of which the relief is now being sought

in the year 2014 by the Plaintiffs. He submits that under Articles 58 and

59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation commences

from the date on which the right to sue first accrues and in the present

case, as Plaintiffs acquired knowledge of the Deed of 1963, at least in

the year 1997, the right to sue first accrued. He submits that, as the

bar of limitation is evident on the face of the plaint, the suit has been

rightly rejected. In support, he relies upon the following decisions:

SQ Pathan 7/15

FA-472-2026.doc

i.Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra)

1

ii.Raghwendra Sharan Singh vs. Ram Prasanna Singh

(Dead) by LRs

2

9.The point which arises for determination is whether the plaint is

liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) as being barred by law

of limitation.

10.It is well settled that, for the purpose of adjudicating an

application under Order VII Rule 11, it is only the averments in the

plaint and the documents annexed to the plaint which are germane.

The plaint has to be read in a meaningful manner in order to ascertain

whether it is barred by law, which includes the law of limitation. The

substantive relief sought by the Plaintiffs was a declaration that the

registered Sale Deed dated 11

th

April 1963 and the Agreement for Sale

dated 9

th

June 1960 between Anthony Joseph Misquitta and Matadin

Mangal Mishra and Ramdev Mangal Mishra are null and void. The other

reliefs were consequential to the grant of the declaration about the

indentures being null and void. The case set forth in the plaint is that

the Plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Anthony Joseph Misquitta, who

owned the suit property through his predecessors. Paragraph 7 of the

plaint pleads about the Agreement for Sale dated 26

th

May 1960,

alleged to have been signed and executed by the Plaintiffs' father on

1(2020) 7 SCC 366

2Civil Appeal/2960/2019 decided on 13/03/2019

SQ Pathan 8/15

FA-472-2026.doc

9

th

June 1960 in favour of Matadin Mangal Mishra and Ramdev Mangal

Mishra, which is a forged and fabricated document and consequently,

the execution of the conveyance by Defendants Nos. 5 to 18 in respect

of the suit premises is null and void. It is pleaded that the Defendants

succeeded before the Konkan Division Commissioner on the basis of

the Conveyance Deed dated 13

th

January 2011 and thereafter, the

Plaintiffs have approached the Civil Court for appropriate order and

declaration that the registered Deed dated 11

th

April 1963, the

Agreement dated 9

th

June 1960 and the Conveyance Deed dated 13

th

January 2011 are null and void. Paragraph 15 of the plaint reads as

under:

“15. The plaintiffs state that since they did not have the

copy of the conveyance Deed back then. But along with

the copy of the index II, which contained the forged

signature of Mr. Anthony Joseph Misquitta, the plaintiffs

went ahead and had appointed a handwriting Expert Mr.

Mahesh Wagh, Examiner of Document, Addl. Chief State

Examiner of Document, CID having his address at 15-H

Ambe Wadi, Girgaum Road, Mumbai :- 400 004, to verify

the signature on the said document i.e. the agreement for

sale dated 9

th

June 1960 and the deed of conveyance

dated 11

th

April 1963 Mr. Wagh after perusing many

documents having signature of Mr. Anthony Joseph

Misquitta has given his written opinion dated 25

th

September, 1997. Annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit

“J” is the copy of the said opinion given by Mr. Mahesh

Wagh.”

11. The cause of action is pleaded in paragraph 45 to have arisen on

20

th

July 2014, when the Plaintiffs obtained legal advice that the

SQ Pathan 9/15

FA-472-2026.doc

revenue record would not suffice and that a Civil Suit was required to

be filed. To the plaint is annexed the opinion of the handwriting expert

dated 25

th

September 1997, which is referred to in paragraph 15 of the

plaint. The opinion records that the expert had examined the

questioned signatures of Anthony Joseph Misquitta on the xerox copy

of the Indenture dated 11

th

April 1963 and, upon comparison with the

standard signatures, was of the opinion that the questioned signature

was not written by the writer of the standard signatures. It is,

therefore, the Plaintiffs' own case that a photocopy of the Indenture

dated 11

th

April 1963 was available with them and was submitted to

the handwriting expert, who gave his opinion in the year 1997. The

execution of the Indenture of 1963 was, therefore, within the

knowledge of the Plaintiffs in the year 1997.

12.The pleadings in the plaint is that the father of Defendants Nos.

5 to 18, i.e., the legal heirs of Matadin Mishra and Ramdev Mishra, had

prepared forged and fabricated documents and got them registered on

11

th

April 1963, who did not have any right in the suit premises and as

the Defendant No. 4 claims through Defendants Nos. 5 to 18,

Defendant No. 4 also does not have any right, title or interest in the

suit premises. The pleadings of forgery are based on the expert

opinion obtained in the year 1997. The relief sought is a declaration

that the deeds are forged and fabricated. Therefore, the limitation

SQ Pathan 10/15

FA-472-2026.doc

under Article 58 of Limitation Act, 1963 is triggered when the right to

sue first accrued. Article 58 uses the expression “first accrued”, which

would be the date of acquiring knowledge of existence of the alleged

forged documents.

13.The documents of 1960, 1963 and 2011 are sought to be

challenged in the year 2014 based on an illusory cause of action of

legal advice. Before this Court, the submission canvassed was that the

cause of action had arisen upon the order passed by the City Survey

Officer directing the Plaintiffs to approach the Civil Court for

adjudication of their civil rights in respect of the suit premises. It is not

the order of the survey officer which would give rise to a cause of

action to the Plaintiffs to file the suit, but the knowledge of the Deed

of 1963, in the year 1997, which would trigger the period of limitation.

The suit, which has been filed in the year 2014, is ex facie barred by

limitation upon a reading of the plaint and the documents appended

thereto.

14.It is well settled that an application under Order VII Rule 11 of

CPC can be filed at any stage of the proceedings. It is also no answer to

say that the Defendant No. 4 had no right to file the application, as the

Defendant No. 4 claims title through the Deed of Conveyance which is

sought to be assailed by the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.4 has been

impleaded as a party.

SQ Pathan 11/15

FA-472-2026.doc

15.In the case of Nusli Neville Wadia v. Ivory Properties & Ors.

3

,

one of the issues which was considered by the three-Judge Bench of

the Hon’ble Apex Court was regarding limitation being a mixed

question of law and fact in the context of provisions of Order VII Rule

11 of the CPC. It was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that it cannot be

laid down as a proposition of law under Order 7 Rule 11(d) that a plaint

cannot be rejected as barred by limitation. It further held that it is

permissible to do so in a case where the plaint averment itself indicates

the cause of action to be barred by law of limitation and no further

evidence is required to adjudicate the issue. It noted that the plaint

has to be rejected, if any law bars it as per the averments made in the

plaint.

16.In the case of Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra)

(supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in paragraph 23.14 that the

power under Order VII Rule 11 may be exercised by the Court at any

stage of the suit. It further held in paragraphs 25, 26, 27 and 28 as

under:

“25. The Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes a time-limit for

the institution of all suits, appeals, and applications. Section

2(j) defines the expression "period of limitation" to mean the

period of limitation prescribed in the Schedule for suits,

appeals or applications. Section 3 lays down that every suit

instituted after the prescribed period, shall be dismissed

even though limitation may not have been set up as a

3(2020) 6 SCC 557

SQ Pathan 12/15

FA-472-2026.doc

defence. If a suit is not covered by any specific article, then it

would fall within the residuary article.

26. Articles 58 and 59 of the Schedule to the 1963 Act,

prescribe the period of limitation for filing a suit where a

declaration is sought, or cancellation of an instrument, or

rescission of a contract, which reads as under:

“Description of suit Period of

limitation

Time from which

period begins to run

58. To obtain any other

declaration.

Three yearsWhen the right to sue

first accrues.

59. To cancel or set

aside an instrument or

decree or for the

rescission of a contract.

Three yearsWhen the facts

entitling the plaintiff

to have the instrument

or decree cancelled or

set aside or the

contract rescinded

first become known to

him.”

The period of limitation prescribed under Articles 58 and 59

of the 1963 Act is three years, which commences from the

date when the right to sue first accrues.

27. In Khatri Hotels (P) Ltd. v. Union of India-(2011) 9 SCC

126, this Court held that the use of the word "first" between

the words "sue" and "accrued", would mean that if a suit is

based on multiple causes of action, the period of limitation

will begin to run from the date when the right to sue first

accrues. That is, if there are successive violations of the right,

it would not give rise to a fresh cause of action, and the suit

will be liable to be dismissed, if it is beyond the period of

limitation counted from the date when the right to sue first

accrued.

28. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v.

Gurdev Singh-(1991) 4 SCC 1 : 1991 SCC (L and S) 1082, held

that the Court must examine the plaint and determine when

the right to sue first accrued to the plaintiff, and whether on

the assumed facts, the plaint is within time. The words "right

to sue" mean the right to seek relief by means of legal

SQ Pathan 13/15

FA-472-2026.doc

proceedings. The right to sue accrues only when the cause of

action arises. The suit must be instituted when the right

asserted in the suit is infringed, or when there is a clear and

unequivocal threat to infringe such right by the defendant

against whom the suit is instituted. Order 7 Rule 11(d)

provides that where a suit appears from the averments in

the plaint to be barred by any law, the plaint shall be

rejected.”

17.Applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court to the

facts of the present case, the Plaintiffs have pleaded that in respect of

the Indenture dated 11

th

April 1963, the Plaintiffs had obtained the

handwriting expert's written opinion on 25

th

September 1997. It is not

the obtaining of legal advice in the year 2014 which would constitute

cause of action for filing the suit, but the knowledge of the document

being a forged document on 25

th

September 1997 which infringes the

Plaintiffs’ right claimed in the suit property and gives rise to cause of

action. By pleading an illusory cause of action of obtaining legal advice,

the suit has been filed in an attempt to overcome the bar of limitation.

18.The pleadings in the plaint make it clear that the suit is barred by

the law of limitation, as it seeks to challenge the Indentures of 1960

and 1963 in the year 2014. The period of three years for the purpose of

limitation will have to be computed from the date of knowledge of the

Plaintiffs, i.e., in the year 1997. The suit is hopelessly barred by

limitation.

SQ Pathan 14/15

FA-472-2026.doc

19.The Trial Court has examined the pleadings in the plaint, the

documents produced, and, in particular, the expert opinion dated 25

th

September 1997, to hold that the right to sue first accrued to the

Plaintiffs on 25

th

September 1997, and the cause of action arose on 25

th

September 1997. The Trial Court has rightly held that the suit is barred

by limitation and rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the

CPC.

20.In light of the discussion above, the plaint is liable to be rejected

under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC, being barred by limitation.

Resultantly, the First Appeal fails and stands dismissed.

21.Interim Application does not survive for consideration and is

disposed of.

[SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.]

SQ Pathan 15/15