Or. VII R. 11(a), (d) — Rejection of plaint at pre-registration stage — Held, where the plaint pleads detailed cause of action and limitation based on date of knowledge, limitation is a mixed question of law and fact; rejection at threshold on “barred by limitation/no cause of action” is impermissible. Meaningful reading of the plaint as a whole required; trial court erred by imputing knowledge merely from registration of documents. [Paras 25–33, 46–47] Limitation Act, 1963 — Arts. 58 & 65 — Declaration with consequential possession — When declaration of title is accompanied by recovery of possession based on title, Art. 65 (12 years from adverse possession) governs; declaration becomes ancillary. N. Thajudeen v. TN Khadi applied. [Paras 18–24] Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Ss. 31 & 34 — Non-executant’s remedy — Non-executant may seek declaration that deed is void/not binding without cancellation under S.31. Hussain Ahmed Choudhury referred. [Para 24] CPC, 1908 — Or. II R. 2; res judicata — Effect of earlier O.S. No.372/2015, and whether second suit barred, are trial issues; cannot ground Or. VII R. 11 rejection. [Paras 37–38] A.P. Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act, 1956 — Ss. 63, 64 — On setting aside rejection and directing receipt of plaint, refund of full court fee on memo of appeal directed; refund to appellants’ bank account on furnishing particulars. Veluru Prabhavathi followed. [Paras 39–45, 47(iii)-(iv)]

APHC010402112025 — Appeal Suit No. 409 of 2025
High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati
Coram: Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari & Hon’ble Sri Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam
Date: 08-10-2025
Parties: Gummadi Usha Rani & Gutta Sunitha — Appellants/Petitioners
vs. Guduru Venkateswara Rao & Ors. — Respondents
Provision: “Appeal under Section 96 R/w Order 41 Rule 1 of C.P.C, against the order dated 06-05-2025 under G.L.No.1148 dated 07-03-2025 passed in O.S. No. ___ of 2025 on the file of the Hon’ble II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District.”

Headnotes (court-style)

CPC, 1908 — Or. VII R. 11(a), (d) — Rejection of plaint at pre-registration stage — Held, where the plaint pleads detailed cause of action and limitation based on date of knowledge, limitation is a mixed question of law and fact; rejection at threshold on “barred by limitation/no cause of action” is impermissible. Meaningful reading of the plaint as a whole required; trial court erred by imputing knowledge merely from registration of documents. [Paras 25–33, 46–47]

Limitation Act, 1963 — Arts. 58 & 65 — Declaration with consequential possession — When declaration of title is accompanied by recovery of possession based on title, Art. 65 (12 years from adverse possession) governs; declaration becomes ancillary. N. Thajudeen v. TN Khadi applied. [Paras 18–24]

Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Ss. 31 & 34 — Non-executant’s remedy — Non-executant may seek declaration that deed is void/not binding without cancellation under S.31. Hussain Ahmed Choudhury referred. [Para 24]

CPC, 1908 — Or. II R. 2; res judicata — Effect of earlier O.S. No.372/2015, and whether second suit barred, are trial issues; cannot ground Or. VII R. 11 rejection. [Paras 37–38]

A.P. Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act, 1956 — Ss. 63, 64 — On setting aside rejection and directing receipt of plaint, refund of full court fee on memo of appeal directed; refund to appellants’ bank account on furnishing particulars. Veluru Prabhavathi followed. [Paras 39–45, 47(iii)-(iv)]

Facts of the Case (drawn from the judgment record)

• Plaintiffs filed a comprehensive suit seeking: (i) declaration of title over Plaint ‘B’ & ‘C’ schedule properties by holding multiple registered sale deeds/GPA transactions (1996–2011) in favour of various defendants null and void / not binding; (ii) recovery of possession (B-schedule from D5–D7); and (iii) permanent injunctions restraining alienation/interference (against D5–D13).

• Office objection (05-03-2025): “How the suit is within limitation? Explain.”

• Representation (07-03-2025): Plaintiffs asserted limitation on date of knowledge, contending limitation is mixed law & fact; for possession, Arts. 64/65 outer limit applies.

• Trial Court (II ADJ, Vijayawada): After hearing, by order 06-05-2025, rejected the plaint at registration stage under Or. VII R. 11, holding: registration gives notice to the world; plaintiffs had knowledge; suit barred by limitation and disclosed no cause of action; also adverted to dismissal of O.S. 372/2015.

• Plaintiffs first filed C.R.P. No.1440/2025; withdrawn with liberty, since rejection is a decree (S.2(2) CPC); hence A.S. No.409/2025.

Conclusion (operative result)

• Appeal Allowed.

• Order dated 06-05-2025 rejecting the plaint set aside.

• Direction: Trial court shall receive the plaint and register the suit.

• Refund: Full court fee paid on the memorandum of appeal to be refunded to the appellants (to the bank account of any one appellant upon furnishing details).

• Costs: No order as to costs.

• Compliance: Registrar (Judicial) to ensure due compliance.

Analysis of the Judgment

1. Threshold bar under Or. VII R. 11 not made out:
   The Division Bench stresses the settled test—only plaint averments count at this stage; the plaint must be read meaningfully as a whole. Here, the plaint pleads date-of-knowledge and a continuing chain of causes of action; therefore, limitation turns on disputed facts (knowledge/adversity/possession), making it a mixed question unsuitable for summary rejection.

2. Limitation framework correctly re-stated:
   The Court aligns with Thajudeen: where declaration + possession is sought based on title, the real driver is Art. 65 (12 years from when possession becomes adverse). Art. 58 cannot be applied in isolation to defeat a title-based possession claim at the threshold.

3. Registration ≠ conclusive knowledge at this stage:
   While registration is constructive notice “to the world,” the Bench treats that presumption as rebuttable; given the plaint’s specific pleading of actual discovery (e.g., cross-examination in 2021, inquiry in 2022, occupation in 2023), the inference of time-bar cannot be drawn without evidence.

4. Prior litigation no bar at filing stage:
   Whether O.S. 372/2015 and its dismissal trigger res judicata or Or. II R. 2 is kept open; these raise fact-intensive issues (identity of cause of action, omission/leave, intentional relinquishment) to be tested after registration, not via Or. VII R. 11.

5. Relief architecture for non-executant deeds:
   By invoking Hussain Ahmed Choudhury, the Court signals that a non-executant need not seek cancellation (S.31); a declaration of non-binding/void suffices—undercutting the trial court’s approach that stiffer relief (and tighter limitation) applied.

6. Court-fee refund as consequential relief:
   Following Ss. 63–64 A.P. Act and Veluru Prabhavathi, setting aside a wrongful rejection justifies refund of appeal court-fee, with a practical direction on remittance—useful for registry compliance.