The Supreme Court, in a significant ruling on civil procedure, has held that a plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on the ground of being barred by limitation if the suit seeks multiple reliefs and at least one of them is within the prescribed time period. The Court emphasized that for a suit for possession based on title, the question of adverse possession is a mixed question of law and fact that must be decided during trial, not at the preliminary stage of rejecting the plaint.
A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra delivered the judgment while setting aside an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which had rejected a plaint in a long-standing property dispute. The Supreme Court restored the trial court’s order, allowing the suit to proceed on its merits.
Background of the Case
The dispute concerns agricultural land originally owned by Ronak Singh, who died intestate on October 5, 1924, survived by his widow, Kartar Kaur. A succession dispute arose between Kartar Kaur and the sisters of Ronak Singh, who are the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiff, Karam Singh.
Kartar Kaur was eventually held to be the owner in possession of the land by a civil court decree dated September 11, 1975. After her death on December 28, 1983, the defendants (Amarjit Singh and others) claimed the property based on a purported will executed by her on December 15, 1976.
The plaintiffs, claiming to be the natural heirs, contested this will in mutation proceedings. These revenue proceedings continued for several years, finally concluding on July 20, 2017. Subsequently, on May 31, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a civil suit seeking a declaration of their ownership, cancellation of the will and subsequent mutation entries, possession of the suit land, and a permanent injunction.
The defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC to reject the plaint, arguing it was “hopelessly barred by time” as the plaintiffs had knowledge of the will since 1983. The trial court dismissed this application on January 7, 2020, holding that the question of limitation was a mixed question of law and fact. However, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a revision petition, allowed the defendants’ application and rejected the plaint in an ex-parte order dated January 27, 2022.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
The appellant (plaintiff) argued that the High Court had incorrectly concluded that the suit was filed 36 years after the culmination of mutation proceedings, when in fact they ended in 2017. More importantly, it was contended that since the primary relief was for possession based on title, the limitation period would be 12 years under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, starting from when the defendants’ possession became adverse.
The respondents (defendants) maintained that the suit was barred by limitation as the plaintiffs were aware of the registered will since 1983. They also argued that a previous suit filed by the plaintiff’s predecessor in 2012 had been dismissed, and thus the current suit was an abuse of the process of law.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
The Supreme Court, in its detailed analysis, first reiterated the foundational principle for considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d). The bench stated, “…while considering rejection of the plaint thereunder only the averments made in the plaint and nothing else is to be considered to find out whether the suit is barred by law. At this stage, the defense is not to be considered.”
The Court observed that the suit was not merely for a declaration against the will, but crucially, also for possession based on title. It held that the limitation for such a suit is governed by Article 65 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, which provides a period of 12 years from the date the defendants’ possession becomes adverse to the plaintiff.
Justice Misra, writing for the bench, noted, “When a suit is instituted for possession, based on title, to defeat the suit on the ground of adverse possession, the burden is on the defendant to prove adverse possession for the prescriptive period. This, therefore, in our view, cannot be an issue on which the plaint could be rejected at the threshold.”
The judgment laid down a clear legal proposition: “where several reliefs are sought in suit, if any one of the reliefs is within the period of limitation, the plaint cannot be rejected as barred by law by taking recourse to Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC.”
Relying on its earlier decisions, the Court stated that a suit for a declaration of title to immovable property is not barred so long as the right to the property subsists. In the present case, since the relief for possession was not prima facie barred, the entire suit could not have been dismissed at the preliminary stage.
Addressing the High Court’s reasoning, the Supreme Court observed that it was “swayed only by the fact that will set up was 36 years old” and had overlooked that the will’s validity was consistently questioned in mutation proceedings that concluded only in 2017.
The Court concluded, “In between, whether the defendants perfected their title by adverse possession would be a mixed question of law and fact and can appropriately be addressed only after evidence is led. The same cannot be made basis to reject the plaint at the threshold.”
Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned orders of the High Court, and restored the trial court’s order. The trial court has been directed to proceed with the suit in accordance with the law.
