Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order VII Rule 11 — Rejection of plaint — Stage of registration — Limitation — Scope
Held, rejection of a plaint at the stage of registration under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation is impermissible where the plaint contains specific averments regarding cause of action and date of knowledge, and where limitation is a mixed question of law and fact requiring evidence.
(Paras 25, 31–33, 46)
Limitation Act, 1963 — Articles 58 and 65 — Suit for declaration and recovery of possession — Governing article
Held, where a suit seeks declaration of title with the further relief of recovery of possession based on title, the relief of declaration is ancillary and limitation is governed by Article 65 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, i.e., 12 years from the date when possession becomes adverse, and not Article 58 alone.
(Paras 18–19, 46)
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order VII Rule 11 — Meaningful reading of plaint — Defence irrelevant
Held, while considering rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the court must confine itself to the averments in the plaint alone, read the plaint as a whole, and cannot rely on defence material, previous judgments, or inferences of knowledge merely from registration of documents.
(Paras 20–21, 33)
Registration Act, 1908 — Effect of registration — Knowledge — Presumption
Held, registration of a document may amount to notice to the world, but such presumption is rebuttable; where the plaint specifically pleads a later date of knowledge, such plea cannot be rejected at the threshold without trial.
(Paras 26, 31–32)
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order II Rule 2 — Bar of subsequent suit — Stage of consideration
Held, whether a subsequent suit is barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC, or by res judicata, or for want of cause of action, involves mixed questions of law and fact and cannot be decided at the stage of registration or under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
(Paras 37–38)
Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 — Sections 63 & 64 — Refund of court fee
Held, where rejection of plaint is set aside and the plaint is directed to be received and registered, the appellants are entitled to refund of the entire court fee paid on the memorandum of appeal under Section 64 of the Act, 1956.
(Paras 39–45, 46)
ANALYSIS OF FACTS
-
The appellants instituted a comprehensive civil suit seeking:
-
declaration of title,
-
declaration that multiple registered sale deeds and GPA transactions are null and void and not binding, and
-
consequential recovery of possession and permanent injunctions.
-
-
At the stage of registration, the office of the II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, raised an objection as to limitation.
-
The plaintiffs explained in their representation that:
-
limitation is a mixed question of law and fact,
-
the suit is one for declaration with recovery of possession, and
-
the cause of action and date of knowledge were specifically pleaded.
-
-
By order dated 06.05.2025, the trial court rejected the plaint, holding that:
-
registration of documents amounts to notice to the world,
-
the plaintiffs had knowledge long prior, and
-
the suit was barred by limitation and without cause of action, also relying on dismissal of an earlier suit O.S.No.372 of 2015.
-
-
The plaintiffs preferred A.S.No.409 of 2025 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, challenging the rejection of plaint.
ANALYSIS OF LAW
-
The Division Bench examined the scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, reiterating that:
-
only the plaint averments are relevant,
-
defence material, previous judgments, or presumptions cannot be imported, and
-
the plaint must be read as a whole with a meaningful reading.
(Paras 20, 33)
-
-
Relying on N. Thajudeen v. Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board, the Court held that:
-
suits for declaration with recovery of possession are governed by Article 65,
-
limitation runs from the date possession becomes adverse, and
-
such determination necessarily requires evidence.
(Paras 18–19)
-
-
The Court distinguished cases where limitation could be inferred on the face of the plaint (e.g., long-concluded partitions with admitted knowledge), holding that those facts were absent here.
(Paras 27–28) -
The Court categorically held that:
-
mere registration does not conclusively establish knowledge, and
-
where the plaint pleads a specific later date of knowledge, limitation cannot be decided at the threshold.
(Paras 31–32)
-
-
On the issue of the earlier suit O.S.No.372 of 2015, the Court held that:
-
questions of Order II Rule 2 CPC, res judicata, omission of reliefs, or intentional relinquishment require trial, and
-
cannot form the basis for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
(Paras 35–38)
-
-
On refund of court fee, applying Sections 63 and 64 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956, the Court directed full refund, as the rejection of plaint was set aside.
(Paras 39–46)
RATIO DECIDENDI
-
A plaint seeking declaration of title with consequential recovery of possession cannot be rejected at the stage of registration under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground of limitation when the plaint contains specific averments regarding cause of action and date of knowledge, making limitation a mixed question of law and fact.
-
In suits combining declaration and recovery of possession based on title, limitation is governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, and not solely by Article 58.
-
Presumption of knowledge arising from registration of documents is rebuttable and cannot, by itself, justify rejection of plaint without trial.
-
Bars under Order II Rule 2 CPC or res judicata involve factual determination and cannot be decided at the stage of plaint registration.
-
When rejection of plaint is set aside and the plaint is directed to be received, full refund of court fee paid in appeal is mandatory under Section 64 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956.
