Supreme Court Sets Aside HC’s Ex Parte Rejection of Title Suit; Plaint Not Time-Barred on Its Face:

Supreme Court Sets Aside HC’s Ex Parte Rejection of Title Suit; Plaint Not Time-Barred on Its Face The dispute concerned ancestral land originally owned by Ronak Singh, who died in 1924. His widow, Kartar Kaur, and his sisters (predecessors of the plaintiffs) litigated over succession for decades. A gift by Kartar Kaur was invalidated in 1935, and later in 1975 she was declared owner in possession. After her death in 1983, the defendants relied on an alleged will dated 15.12.1976 to claim mutation. The plaintiffs challenged the mutation entry, and the proceedings continued until their final culmination on 20.07.2017. On 31.05.2019, the plaintiffs filed the present suit seeking declaration of title, possession, mesne profits and injunction, asserting that the will was a fraudulent document. The defendants applied under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC to reject the plaint as time-barred, arguing that the plaintiffs knew of the will since 1983 and that an earlier 2012 suit barred the fresh action under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. The trial court rejected the application, holding limitation was a mixed question of law and fact. The High Court, however, in revision, reversed the order ex parte and rejected the plaint as being hopelessly barred by limitation, and later refused to recall its order. Main Issue: Whether the plaint could be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC on the basis that the suit was barred by limitation or Order 2 Rule 2, considering the pleadings in the plaint alone. SC Decision: The Supreme Court held that rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) was entirely unwarranted. It reiterated that only the averments in the plaint, can be considered at this stage. Since mutation proceedings concluded only in 2017, and the suit was filed within three years thereafter, the claim challenging the mutation was not ex facie time-barred. Moreover, the suit was primarily for possession based on title, which is governed by a 12-year limitation under Article 65, requiring the defendants to prove adverse possession, an issue suitable only for trial. The High Court erred in treating the existence of a 36-year-old will as conclusive for limitation without considering the plaintiffs’ continuous contestation of the will in mutation proceedings. The Court further held that the earlier 2012 suit, whose plaint had been rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 for improper framing, did not bar the present suit under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. The Supreme Court restored the trial court’s order, set aside both High Court orders, and directed the suit to proceed on the merits without treating any of its observations as findings on the substantive issues. To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below