In P. Kumarakurubaran v. P. Narayanan & Others (Civil Appeal No. 5622 of 2025), the Supreme Court on 29 April 2025 held that the question of limitation cannot be decided summarily at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when it involves disputed facts or hinges on the date of knowledge. A Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan ruled that such issues constitute a mixed question of law and fact and must be adjudicated upon full trial. The Court thus set aside the order passed by the High Court of Madras which had rejected the appellant’s plaint on limitation grounds, and restored the suit for trial.
Background of the Case
The appellant, P. Kumarakurubaran, filed a civil suit (O.S. No. 310 of 2014) before the Principal District Court, Chengalpet, seeking several reliefs including declaration of ownership over a property, cancellation of certain registered instruments (including a sale deed and settlement deed), and injunctions restraining the respondents from interfering with his possession or altering the property’s status through construction or registration activities.
He alleged that he was assigned the suit property in 1974 by the Special Tahsildar and had remained in possession since. He had executed a power of attorney in favour of his father in 1978, but claimed that it was limited to construction purposes and did not authorize his father to sell the property. Contrary to this, the appellant’s father had executed a sale deed in 1988 in favour of his granddaughter (Defendant No. 1), which the appellant contended was illegal and beyond the scope of the power of attorney.
Upon learning of the transaction years later, the appellant approached the police on 9 December 2011 and subsequently took steps such as applying for patta and raising objections with authorities. He ultimately filed the suit on 3 December 2014.
During pendency of the suit, the respondents filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on grounds of undervaluation and limitation. The trial court dismissed the application on 4 October 2017, holding that the issues required evidence and could not be decided at the preliminary stage.
However, on revision, the Madras High Court allowed the Civil Revision Petition (CRP No. 131 of 2018) and rejected the plaint solely on the ground that the suit was time-barred.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
Senior counsel for the appellant contended that the High Court had erred in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, particularly given that the question of limitation—based on the date of knowledge—was a mixed question of law and fact. It was submitted that the plaint specifically averred that the appellant became aware of the impugned transaction in 2011 and filed the suit within three years thereafter, and that such an assertion could not be summarily disbelieved without trial.
The appellant also maintained that the power of attorney did not empower his father to alienate the property, and thus the subsequent transactions—including sale, settlement, and general power of attorney deeds—were illegal and fraudulent.
On the other hand, the respondents argued that the suit was barred by limitation since the sale deed was executed in 1988, and that the appellant, being closely related to the defendants, could not claim ignorance of the transaction for over two decades. They relied on precedents such as Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (2020) 7 SCC 366 to contend that a suit barred by limitation could be rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Court confined its examination to the issue of limitation, noting that the High Court had rejected the plaint solely on this ground. Referring to Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the Bench reiterated that the period of limitation for suits seeking cancellation of instruments runs from the date of knowledge of the plaintiff.
It held:
“Once the date of knowledge is specifically pleaded and forms the basis of the cause of action, the issue of limitation cannot be decided summarily. It becomes a mixed question of law and fact, which cannot be adjudicated at the threshold stage under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.”
The Court relied on several decisions including Daliben Valjibhai v. Prajapati Kodarbhai Kachrabhai, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4105; Chhotanben v. Kiritbhai Thakkar, (2018) 6 SCC 422; and Shakti Bhog Foods Ltd. v. Central Bank of India, (2020) 17 SCC 260, to underscore that courts must accept the plaint’s averments at face value while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
It also found that the appellant had raised serious allegations of fraud and lack of authority, and that the trial court had committed no error in holding that these issues required a full trial.
Decision
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court held:
“Rejecting the plaint where substantial factual disputes exist concerning limitation and the scope of authority under the Power of Attorney, is legally unsustainable.”
It accordingly set aside the judgment dated 3 September 2020 passed by the High Court of Madras in CRP (NPD) No. 131 of 2018, and restored the trial court’s order dated 4 October 2017 in I.A. No. 151 of 2015, refusing to reject the plaint.
The suit was directed to be restored and tried on its merits, with the trial court instructed not to be influenced by any observations made by the High Court. No order was made as to costs.
