CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 — O.7 R.11(d) — Rejection of plaint — Bar by limitation — Scope and stage at which to be considered
While considering an application under O.7 R.11(d) CPC, the court must confine itself only to the averments made in the plaint and not to the defence. The plaint can be rejected only if, from the statements in the plaint itself, the suit appears ex facie barred by law. (Para 15)
Where plaintiffs, claiming as natural heirs, instituted a suit for declaration, possession and mesne profits within three years of culmination of mutation proceedings (which concluded on 20-7-2017), the suit filed on 31-5-2019 could not be held barred by limitation merely because the will set up by the defendants was of the year 1976 and was relied upon since 1983. Mutation entries being fiscal in nature do not confer title. (Paras 16-18)
Held, High Court erred in reversing the trial court’s order and rejecting the plaint under O.7 R.11 CPC. The plaint could not be said to be ex facie barred by limitation.
(See also Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh, (1997) 7 SCC 137; Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186, relied on.)
LIMITATION ACT, 1963 — Art. 65 — Possession based on ownership/title — Limitation of 12 years — Burden of proof
When the main relief in a suit is for possession of immovable property based on ownership/title, limitation prescribed under Art. 65 is twelve years from the date possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff. Until the defendant establishes adverse possession for the prescriptive period, the plaintiff cannot be non-suited on limitation. (Para 18)
Hence, where plaintiffs sought possession based on title, and validity of defendants’ will was still being contested in mutation proceedings till 2017, plaint could not be rejected as time-barred. (Paras 17-19)
(Indira v. Arumugam, (1998) 1 SCC 614, followed.)
O.2 R.2 CPC — Bar of second suit — Applicability
Where the earlier suit had been rejected under O.7 R.11 CPC as not properly framed and not tried on merits, a subsequent properly framed suit for appropriate reliefs cannot be held barred under O.2 R.2 CPC. (Para 22)
Trial court rightly held that plea of bar under O.2 R.2 CPC should be treated as an issue in the suit and not as a ground for rejection of plaint at threshold. (Para 22)
DECLARATION AND POSSESSION — Reliefs combined — If one relief within limitation, plaint not liable to rejection
Where several reliefs are claimed and any one of them is within limitation, the plaint cannot be rejected as barred by limitation under O.7 R.11(d) CPC. (Para 19)
(Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. v. Mahaveer Lunia, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1208, relied on.)
Further held, in a suit for declaration with consequential relief of possession, the limitation would be governed by Article applicable to possession; declaration of title remains a continuing right so long as ownership subsists. (Para 20; N. Thajudeen v. Tamil Nadu Khadi & Village Industries Board, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3037, followed; C. Mohammad Yunus v. Syed Unnissa, AIR 1961 SC 808, followed.)
REVISION — Ex parte order — Recall — Non-service of notice
Where revision before the High Court was decided ex parte without notice being served on respondents, refusal to recall such order was improper. (Para 12)
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Mutation entries — Nature of rights conferred
Mutation entries are made only for fiscal purposes and do not by themselves confer title. (Paras 16, 18)
HELD :
High Court failed to consider plaint averments as a whole and was swayed only by the age of the will (36 years). Mutation proceedings were summary in nature and concluded in 2017; the suit filed in 2019 was within limitation. Whether defendants perfected title by adverse possession is a mixed question of law and fact, to be tried on evidence. The plaint could not be rejected at threshold under O.7 R.11 CPC.
Trial court’s order rejecting defendants’ application under O.7 R.11 CPC restored; suit to proceed on merits in accordance with law. (Paras 21, 23)
CASES REFERRED TO :
-
T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467.
-
Rajendra Bajoria v. Hemant Kumar Jalan, (2022) 12 SCC 641.
-
Ramisetty Venkatanna v. Nasyam Jamal Saheb, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 521.
-
Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh, (1997) 7 SCC 137.
-
Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186.
-
Indira v. Arumugam, (1998) 1 SCC 614.
-
N. Thajudeen v. Tamil Nadu Khadi & Village Industries Board, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3037.
-
C. Mohammad Yunus v. Syed Unnissa, AIR 1961 SC 808.
-
Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. v. Mahaveer Lunia, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1208.
RESULT :
Appeal allowed.
Impugned judgment and order(s) of the Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside.
Order of Trial Court rejecting defendants’ application under O.7 R.11 CPC restored.
Trial court to proceed with the suit in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observation herein.
2025 INSC 1238
Civil Appeals @ SLP (C) Nos. 3560-3561/2023 Page 1 of 16
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL Nos …… OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 3560-3561/2023)
KARAM SINGH …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
AMARJIT SINGH & ORS. …RESPONDENT (S)
J U D G M E N T
MANOJ MISRA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These two appeals impugn two orders of the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh1. The first is
dated 27.01.2022 passed in Civil Revision No.725/2020
whereas the second is dated 04.07.2022 by which
1 The High Court.
Civil Appeals @ SLP (C) Nos. 3560-3561/2023 Page 2 of 16
application2 seeking recall of the order dated 27.01.2022
has been rejected.
3. The appellant along with Dilbag Singh (i.e., proforma
respondent no. 9) instituted Suit No.424 of 2019 against
Amarjit Singh (i.e., respondent no.1), Shamsher Singh (i.e.,
respondent no.2), Jagdish Singh (i.e., respondent no.3),
Smt. Nachhattar Kaur (i.e., respondent no.4), Kuldeep Kaur
(i.e., respondent no.5), Sukhdeep Kaur (i.e., respondent
no.8), Sandeep Singh (i.e., respondent no.6) and Major
Singh (i.e., respondent no.7) for:
(i) declaring: (a) plaintiff(s) owners of suit land to
the extent of their shares as specified in the
plaint; and (b) the certificate, registered at 277
on 12.01.1977, and mutation no.1377 as
illegal, null and void;
(ii) possession of suit land to the extent of
plaintiffs’ share;
2 Misc. Application No.7259/2022
Civil Appeals @ SLP (C) Nos. 3560-3561/2023 Page 3 of 16
(iii) damages/ compensation/ mesne profits for
use and occupation of suit land for the period
starting from May 2016 to May 2019; and
(iv) permanent prohibitory injunction.
4. The plaint case in a nutshell was that the original
owner of the suit land was Ronak Singh alias Ronaki who
died intestate on 05.10.1924, leaving behind his widow
Kartar Kaur. A dispute arose regarding succession to the
estate of Ronak Singh between Kartar Kaur (i.e. Ronak
Singh’s widow) and Chinki and Nikki (i.e. sisters of Ronak
Singh), predecessor-in interest of the plaintiffs. In between,
Kartar Kaur allegedly gifted the suit land to one Harchand.
Nikki and Chinki challenged the gift. On 22.03.1935, the
civil court held the gift to be invalid as Kartar Kaur had a
limited right. Later, Kartar Kaur herself challenged the gift.
Ultimately, the gift was set aside by decree dated
11.09.1975 and Kartar Kaur was held owner in possession
of the land. Consequent to the decree, on 13.05.1976
mutation was sanctioned and entered in favour of Kartar
Kaur. The mutation entry was contested by predecessor-
Civil Appeals @ SLP (C) Nos. 3560-3561/2023 Page 4 of 16
in-interest of the plaintiffs. During pendency of the
proceedings relating to mutation, Kartar Kaur died on
28.12.1983. The defendants in the suit, namely, the
contesting respondents herein, in the mutation
proceedings, set up a will dated 15.12.1976, alleged to have
been executed by Kartar Kaur, in their favour and claimed
mutation on basis thereof. However, vide order dated
29.04.1984, mutation was ordered in favour of the legal
representatives of Ronak Singh’s sister based on natural
succession and an appeal against the same, filed by the
respondents, was dismissed by the Collector vide order
dated 15.04.1985. Subsequently, the mutation matter was
taken up to higher courts. Finally, the litigation arising out
of mutation ended against the plaintiffs on 20.07.2017.
Thereafter, by claiming that the will set up by the
defendants is null and void, an act of fraud, the plaintiffs
claiming themselves to be natural heirs of Kartar Kaur,
through sisters of Ronak Singh, instituted the suit for the
aforesaid reliefs.
Civil Appeals @ SLP (C) Nos. 3560-3561/2023 Page 5 of 16
5. The defendants (i.e. the contesting respondents) filed
an application under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 19083 for rejection of the plaint on the ground
that the suit is hopelessly barred by time. In the application
it was, inter alia, stated that the will was set up in the year
1983 after the death of Kartar Kaur; the mutation
proceedings based on the will was contested and therefore,
the plaintiffs including their predecessor in interest were
fully aware of the existence of the will; hence, the relief for
declaration qua the will, limitation of which is three years,
was hopelessly barred by limitation. It was also contended
that the plaintiffs’ stand that cause of action had arisen on
20.07.2017 is incorrect and wrong. In addition to above, it
was stated that plaintiffs have concealed a material fact
regarding filing of civil suit no.648/2012, which was filed
by father of plaintiff no.1, wherein the order of mutation
dated 28.05.2012 was challenged without challenging the
will and, therefore, the plaint of the said suit was rejected
3 CPC
Civil Appeals @ SLP (C) Nos. 3560-3561/2023 Page 6 of 16
under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC vide order dated 17.05.2013.
It was thus claimed that the suit was also barred by Order
2 Rule 2 of C.P.C.
6. The trial court rejected the application under Order 7
Rule 11 of CPC, vide order dated 07.01.2020, holding that
on a plain reading of the plaint it cannot be held that the
suit is ex facie barred by limitation; moreover, the question
of limitation is a mixed of question of law and fact therefore,
it would not be appropriate to reject the plaint under Order
7 Rule 11 of CPC. As regards the plea of suit being barred
by Order 2 Rule 2 of C.P.C., the trial court held that the
same can be decided as an issue in the suit.
7. Aggrieved by rejection of their application under Order
7 Rule 11, the contesting respondents preferred revision
before the High Court which came to be allowed by the
impugned order dated 27.01.2022.
8. As the impugned order dated 27.01.2022 was passed
ex parte in as much as none had appeared on behalf of the
plaintiff in the revision, an application was filed for recall of
Civil Appeals @ SLP (C) Nos. 3560-3561/2023 Page 7 of 16
the order dated 27.01.2022, which came to be dismissed by
second impugned order dated 04.07.2022.
9. Aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders, these two
appeals have been filed.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
have also given liberty to the counsel for the parties to file
written submissions.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
11. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
the High Court committed a grave error in holding that the
suit was barred by time. In holding so, the High Court
observed that the suit was instituted after almost 36 years
since culmination of mutation proceedings, which is
incorrect in as much as mutation proceedings culminated
on 20.07.2017 and the suit was instituted on 31.05.2019
(i.e., within three years thereof). In addition to above, it was
contended that the suit was for possession, based on title.
Since the main relief was for possession, the limitation
period would be 12 years from the date when the possession
Civil Appeals @ SLP (C) Nos. 3560-3561/2023 Page 8 of 16
of defendants became hostile and adverse to the plaintiff.
The High Court, however, failed to consider that aspect.
12. Besides above, notice of the revision before the High
Court was not served on the respondents and therefore, the
first impugned order, which is an ex parte order, ought to
have been recalled. On the strength of above submissions,
the learned counsel for the appellant contended that it is a
fit case where the appeals should be allowed and the
impugned order(s) set aside.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
13. On behalf of the respondents, it was contended that
predecessor in interest of the appellant had earlier
instituted civil suit no. 648/2012 seeking permanent
prohibitory injunction to restrain the answering
respondents from alienating the suit property. The said suit
was dismissed on 17.05.2013 on the ground that there
could be no injunction against true owner. Since the
present suit is based on the same cause of action, the same
is liable to be dismissed as being nothing but abuse of the
Civil Appeals @ SLP (C) Nos. 3560-3561/2023 Page 9 of 16
process of law. Moreover, the suit is barred by limitation as
plaintiffs had knowledge of the registered will since 1983.
14. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for
the respondents placed reliance on the following decisions
of this court:
(i) T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal4.
(ii) Rajendra Bajoria & Ors. v. Hemant
Kumar Jalan5.
(iii) Ramisetty Venkatanna & Anr. v.
Nasyam Jamal Saheb & Ors.
6.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
15. Before we assess the correctness of the impugned
orders, we must remind ourselves of the basic principles
governing rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 117 of
4
(1977) 4 SCC 467
5
(2022) 12 SCC 641
6 2023 SCC Online SC 521
7 11. Rejection of plaint. -- The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:-
(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the
valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped,
and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed
by the Court, fails to do so;
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;
Civil Appeals @ SLP (C) Nos. 3560-3561/2023 Page 10 of 16
CPC. Here, the defendants seek rejection of plaint under
clause (d) of Rule 11 (i.e., suit barred by law). Clause (d)
makes it clear that 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. Thus, whether the suit is barred by any law or
not is to be determined on the basis of averments made in
the plaint.
16. In the instant case, the plaintiff instituted the suit by
claiming title through succession to the estate of late Kartar
Kaur. On the other hand, the defendants had set up a will
alleged to have been executed by Kartar Kaur in their
favour. Neither the plaint nor any document brought on
record indicated that the will was probated or its validity
was tested and upheld in regular civil proceedings inter se
(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;
(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9:
Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite
stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff
was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature form correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite
stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time
would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.
Civil Appeals @ SLP (C) Nos. 3560-3561/2023 Page 11 of 16
parties. As far as mutation proceedings are concerned, it is
well settled that mutation entries do not confer title. They
serve a fiscal purpose, that is, to realize tax from the person
whose name is recorded in the revenue records8. Besides
above, the plaint averments indicated that the mutation
proceedings culminated in the year 2017 and the suit in
question was instituted within three years thereafter.
17. Apart from above, the suit was not for a mere
declaration of the will being null and void but for possession
as well. The plaintiff claimed title over the suit land by
natural succession and sought possession based on title.
Where a suit is for possession of immovable property or any
interest therein, based on title, the limitation period is 12
years when the possession of the defendants becomes
adverse to the plaintiff (vide Article 65 of the Schedule to
the Limitation Act).
18. In Indira v. Arumugam & Anr.9, this court held that
when the suit is based on title for possession, once the title
8 See: Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh, (1997) 7 SCC 137; Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186
9
(1998) 1 SCC 614
Civil Appeals @ SLP (C) Nos. 3560-3561/2023 Page 12 of 16
is established based on relevant documents and other
evidence, unless the defendant proves adverse possession
for the prescriptive period, the plaintiff cannot be nonsuited. Consequently, 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. Moreover, the
plaintiffs herein, had clearly disclosed that they had been
contesting the will in the mutation proceedings which
culminated in the year 2017. The suit was instituted within
three years thereafter to declare the mutation entry illegal.
Thus, considering that mutation proceedings are summary
in nature, the institution of the regular suit questioning the
same is not ex facie barred by law10.
19. That apart, where several reliefs are sought in suit, if
any one of the reliefs is within the period of limitation, the
10 See: Jitendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 802; Faqruddin (Dead) through
LRs v. Tajuddin (Dead) through LRs, (2008) 8 SCC 12; Rajinder Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir & others,
(2008) 9 SCC 368
Civil Appeals @ SLP (C) Nos. 3560-3561/2023 Page 13 of 16
plaint cannot be rejected as barred by law by taking
recourse to Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC11.
20. Further, in “N. Thajudeen v. Tamil Nadu Khadi &
Village Industries Board” 12 relying on earlier decision of
this court in “C. Mohammad Yunus v. Syed Unnissa”
13 it
was held:
“23. …in a suit for declaration with a further relief,
the limitation would be governed by the Article
governing the suit for such further relief. In fact, a
suit for a declaration of title to immovable property
would not be barred so long as the right to such a
property continues and subsists. When such right
continues to subsist, the relief for declaration would
be a continuing right and there would be no limitation
for such a suit. The principle is that the suit for a
declaration for a right cannot be held to be barred so
long as Right to Property subsist”.
24. Even otherwise, though the limitation for filing a
suit for declaration of title is three years as per Article
58 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act but for
recovery of possession based upon title, the limitation
is 12 years from the date the possession of the
defendant becomes adverse in terms of Article 65 of
the Schedule to the Limitation Act. Therefore, suit for
the relief of possession was not actually barred and
as such the court of first instance could not have
dismissed the entire suit as barred by time”.
21. In our view, therefore, the plaint as it stood could not
have been rejected on the ground that the suit as framed
11 See: Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. v. Mahaveer Lunia, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1208
12 2024 SCC Online SC 3037
13 AIR 1961 SC 808
Civil Appeals @ SLP (C) Nos. 3560-3561/2023 Page 14 of 16
was barred by limitation. The view to the contrary taken by
the High Court is erroneous in law.
22. Insofar as the suit being barred by Order 2 Rule 2 of
CPC is concerned, the first suit instituted by the
predecessor-in-interest of the appellant was not tried. In
fact, the plaint of that suit was rejected under Order 7 Rule
11 of CPC as not being properly framed. In such
circumstances, a fresh suit with appropriate relief cannot
be, prima facie, barred by Rule 2 of Order 2 of CPC.
Therefore, in our view, the trial court was justified in
directing that the issue, whether the suit is barred by Order
2 Rule 2 of CPC, shall be considered and decided during
trial.
23. At this stage, we may observe that the High Court
while deciding the revision has failed to consider the plaint
averments in its entirety and was swayed only by the fact
that will set up was 36 years old. It overlooked that will
operates only on the death of the testator and here, after
the death of the testator, the validity of the will was
throughout questioned in mutation proceedings which
Civil Appeals @ SLP (C) Nos. 3560-3561/2023 Page 15 of 16
continued and, ultimately, settled in the year 2017. 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. In our view, therefore, the order passed
by the High Court cannot be sustained and the same is
liable to be set aside. The appeals are, therefore, allowed.
The impugned judgment and order(s) of the High Court are
set aside. The order of the trial court rejecting the prayer
to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is restored.
The trial court shall proceed with the suit and bring the
proceedings to its logical conclusion in accordance with
law. It is made clear that any observation made by us shall
not be taken as an opinion on the merit of the issues which
may arise for consideration in the course of the suit
proceedings. We clarify that we have addressed those
issues only with a view to find out whether it was a fit case
for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.
Civil Appeals @ SLP (C) Nos. 3560-3561/2023 Page 16 of 16
24. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
….............................................J.
(J.B. PARDIWALA)
................................................J.
(Manoj Misra)
New Delhi;
October 15, 2025.
