Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-012703-012704 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 32133/2022 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Affirms | Existing Supreme Court precedents on plaint rejection, limitation, inherent powers |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure; Limitation |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Plaintiffs challenged a 1976 will and subsequent mutation in their favour, alleging fraud. Mutation proceedings ended in 2017 against plaintiffs. Suit filed in 2019 for declaration and possession on natural succession basis. Defendants sought rejection under O.7 R.11(d) and O.2 R.2 CPC. Trial court refused; High Court allowed revision ex parte and rejected recall. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | High Courts |
| Follows | Precedents on plaint rejection (T. Arivandandam; Indira v. Arumugam; N. Thajudeen; Yunus) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC, only the averments in the plaint are to be considered for limitation bar.
- Confirms that mutation entries are fiscal and do not confer title; regular suits remain competent.
- Reaffirms that possession suits based on title attract a 12-year limitation under Article 65 Limitation Act from the date possession became adverse.
- Holds that if any one relief in the plaint is within limitation, the entire plaint cannot be rejected on limitation grounds.
- Emphasises that mixed questions of fact and law (e.g., adverse possession) require full trial and cannot justify threshold rejection.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- O.7 R.11(d) enquiry is confined to plaint averments; extrinsic material is not admissible at threshold.
- Mutation proceedings are summary and fiscal; they do not conclusively determine title.
- Under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, a suit for possession based on title must be filed within 12 years from when defendant’s possession became adverse.
- Declaration suits have a continuing right; if any relief (like possession) is within limitation, the entire suit survives.
- Mixed questions (e.g., whether defendants perfected title by adverse possession) are for trial, not for rejecting the plaint.
- Earlier suit rejection under O.7 R.11 does not bar a fresh suit under O.2 R.2 CPC if the previous suit was not adjudicated on merits.
Arguments by the Parties
Appellant (Plaintiffs):
- High Court misread limitation: suit filed within three years of mutation culmination (2017–2019).
- Main relief is possession; limitation is 12 years from adverse possession.
- Revision notice was not served; ex parte order should be recalled.
Respondents (Defendants):
- Plaintiffs knew of the will since 1983; cause of action arose then; suit is time-barred.
- Earlier suit (2012) was dismissed; present suit is an abuse of process under O.2 R.2 CPC.
- Relied on T. Arivandandam, Rajendra Bajoria, Ramisetty Venkatanna for limitation and res judicata principles.
Factual Background
Plaintiffs claimed title as natural heirs of Kartar Kaur, challenging a 1976 will invoked by defendants. Mutation in their favour was ordered but set aside by subsequent orders, ending in 2017. Plaintiffs filed a regular suit in 2019 for declaration of title, possession, damages and injunction. Defendants applied to reject the plaint under limitation (O.7 R.11(d) CPC) and for res judicata (O.2 R.2), which was refused by the trial court but allowed ex parte by the High Court.
Statutory Analysis
- Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC: Ground for rejection if plaint ex facie barred by law based solely on averments.
- Order 2 Rule 2 CPC: Bars successive suits on the same cause, but previous suit was dismissed under O.7 R.11, not on merits.
- Limitation Act, Article 58: Three years for declaration of title.
- Limitation Act, Article 65: Twelve years for possession suits based on title from adverse possession date.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms established principles on plaint rejection and limitation.