The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling, has held that a civil suit cannot be rejected at the preliminary stage of registration on the ground that it is barred by limitation if the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact that requires evidence. The court emphasized that at this stage, the averments in the plaint must be taken at face value.
A division bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam set aside an order of the II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, which had rejected a plaint filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The High Court directed the trial court to register the suit and proceed with the case, also ordering a full refund of the court fee paid by the appellants.
Background of the Case
The case, Gummadi Usha Rani & another v. Guduru Venkateswara Rao and others (A.S. No.409 of 2025), arose from a suit filed by the appellants (plaintiffs) seeking a declaration of absolute ownership over certain properties described in the plaint schedules. They also sought to declare several registered sale deeds, executed between 1996 and 2011, as null and void, and consequently, to recover possession of the properties from the defendants.
On March 5, 2025, the trial court’s office raised an objection, questioning how the suit was within the period of limitation. The plaintiffs’ counsel responded that the limitation was a mixed question of fact and law and that the plaint’s assertions should be accepted for registration purposes.
However, on May 6, 2025, the II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, heard the counsel and rejected the plaint at the registration stage itself. The trial judge reasoned that the sale deeds being challenged were registered documents, and their registration served as “notice to the whole world.” It was concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to file the suit within the prescribed limitation period from the dates of execution of these deeds and were now attempting to create an “illusory cause of action with clever pleading,” especially after their earlier suit (O.S.No.372 of 2015) had been dismissed.
Aggrieved by this rejection, the plaintiffs filed the present appeal before the High Court.
Arguments of the Appellants
Sri A. Syam Sundar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants, argued that the suit was primarily for declaration of title and recovery of possession. He contended that the limitation period for recovery of possession based on title is 12 years from the date the defendant’s possession becomes adverse, a matter that can only be determined after evidence is led. The counsel submitted that the issue of limitation in this case was not a pure question of law and could not be decided summarily by merely reading the plaint. The trial court, he argued, should have registered the suit and considered the plea of rejection under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) only after the defendants had appeared and filed their written statements.
High Court’s Analysis and Findings
The High Court framed two points for determination: A. Whether the rejection of the plaint at the registration stage under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on grounds of being ‘barred by limitation’ and having ‘no cause of action’ was legally justified. B. Whether the appellants were entitled to a refund of the court fee.
On Limitation:
The bench observed that the trial court had incorrectly imputed knowledge of the sale deeds to the plaintiffs merely from the date of their registration. The High Court stated, “At this stage knowledge could not be imputed to plaintiffs only because of the registration of the sale deeds. At this stage only the plaint averments are to be considered and are to be taken as true and correct on their face value.”
The judgment noted that the plaintiffs had clearly pleaded in their plaint that the cause of action arose in January 2022, when they first discovered the “concocted” documents after an investigation prompted by a cross-examination in the previous suit. The High Court held that when specific averments regarding the date of knowledge are made, the issue of limitation becomes a triable issue.
Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in P. Kumarakurubaran vs. P. Narayana, the bench reiterated that when the question of limitation involves disputed facts, it cannot be decided at the stage of Order VII Rule 11. The court found that the trial judge had failed to conduct a “meaningful reading of the plaint as a whole,” completely missing the paragraphs detailing the cause of action and limitation.
On ‘No Cause of Action’ and the Effect of the Previous Suit:
The High Court also addressed the trial court’s finding that the suit was filed after the dismissal of O.S.No.372 of 2015. The bench noted that an appeal against that dismissal was already pending. Furthermore, it held that questions of whether the present suit was barred by res judicata or the provisions of Order II Rule 2 of the CPC were matters to be decided during the trial, based on pleadings and evidence. The court concluded, “At this stage it could not be said that because of O.S.No.372 of 2015, the plaintiff had no cause of action and the plaint deserved rejection.”
Decision
Concluding its analysis, the High Court held that the trial court’s order was legally unsustainable. The judgment stated: “The plaint could not be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C at the stage of registration neither on the ground of ‘barred by limitation’ nor ‘no cause of action’.”
The appeal was allowed, and the order of rejection dated May 6, 2025, was set aside. The High Court directed the II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, to receive the plaint, register the suit, and proceed as per law.
Further, exercising its powers under Section 64 of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956, the bench directed the Registry to refund the full amount of court fee paid on the memorandum of appeal to the appellants.
