Tuesday, December 9, 2025

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 — Order VII Rule 11, Section 96 r/w Order 41 Rule 1 — Rejection of plaint at registration stage — Limitation and cause of action — Scope of enquiry. Rejection of plaint at the stage of registration under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the grounds that the “suit is barred by limitation” and “no cause of action” held unsustainable. Court held that, on a meaningful reading of the plaint as a whole, the plea of limitation in the present case is a mixed question of law and fact, dependent inter alia on the pleaded date of knowledge of the impugned documents and on the nature of reliefs for declaration and recovery of possession based on title. At the stage of registration, only plaint averments are to be looked into and taken as true on their face; the trial court could not treat the dates of registration of sale deeds as conclusive dates of knowledge and non-suit the plaintiffs under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Impugned order rejecting plaint set aside; trial court directed to receive plaint, register the suit and proceed in accordance with law. (Paras 14–15, 17–21, 25–27, 31–33, 46–47(i)–(ii))



1. CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 — Order VII Rule 11, Section 96 r/w Order 41 Rule 1 — Rejection of plaint at registration stage — Limitation and cause of action — Scope of enquiry.

Rejection of plaint at the stage of registration under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the grounds that the “suit is barred by limitation” and “no cause of action” held unsustainable.

Court held that, on a meaningful reading of the plaint as a whole, the plea of limitation in the present case is a mixed question of law and fact, dependent inter alia on the pleaded date of knowledge of the impugned documents and on the nature of reliefs for declaration and recovery of possession based on title. At the stage of registration, only plaint averments are to be looked into and taken as true on their face; the trial court could not treat the dates of registration of sale deeds as conclusive dates of knowledge and non-suit the plaintiffs under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

Impugned order rejecting plaint set aside; trial court directed to receive plaint, register the suit and proceed in accordance with law.
(Paras 14–15, 17–21, 25–27, 31–33, 46–47(i)–(ii))

2. LIMITATION ACT, 1963 — Articles 58 and 65 — Declaration of title and recovery of possession — Date of knowledge — Registration as “notice to world” — Mixed question of law and fact.

Relying on N. Thajudeen v. Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board and C. Mohammad Yunus v. Syed Unnissa, the Court reiterated that:

  • Suit for declaration of title with further relief of recovery of possession based on title is, for limitation purposes, governed by Article 65 (12 years from when possession of defendant becomes adverse), the relief of declaration becoming ancillary;

  • A suit for declaration of title to immovable property is not barred so long as the right to property continues and subsists, the relief for declaration being a continuing right.

Court further noticed Thankamma George v. Lilly Thomas to emphasise that under Article 58 the starting point may involve “date of execution” and/or “date of knowledge” and that knowledge cannot simply be inferred without proof.

Held, in the present case, in view of specific plaint averments in the cause-of-action and limitation paragraphs (including cross-examination on 15.12.2021 leading to investigation and discovery in January 2022 of alleged void-ab initio documents and subsequent occupation in February 2023), limitation could not be decided against the plaintiffs at threshold.

The principle that registration of a document is notice to the whole world is rebuttable; when the plaint itself pleads a later date of knowledge, the issue when limitation begins to run must be decided on evidence and not at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
(Paras 18–19, 22, 25–27, 31–32)

3. ORDER VII RULE 11 CPC — “Clever drafting”, illusion of cause of action — When plaint can be rejected — Requirement of meaningful reading of plaint as a whole.

Referring to Vinod Infra Developers Ltd v. Mahaveer Lunia and others, P. Kumarakurubaran v. P. Narayana and others, Smt Uma Devi and others v. Sri Anand Kumar and others, Mukund Bhavan Trust, and Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal, the Court reiterated:

  • At Order VII Rule 11 stage, Court is confined to plaint averments; defence pleadings are immaterial;

  • If triable issues arise or limitation turns on disputed facts (including date of knowledge), plaint cannot be rejected on limitation without evidence;

  • “Clever drafting” which creates an illusion of cause of action can justify rejection, but only after a meaningful reading of the plaint as a whole.

On facts, held that the trial court failed to read the plaint as a whole and completely missed the specific paragraphs on cause of action and limitation; therefore, the finding that suit is “barred by limitation and without any cause of action” is unsustainable.
(Paras 20–22, 25, 27–30, 33)

4. SECOND SUIT — Earlier suit dismissed — Order II Rule 2 CPC, res judicata, and bar of fresh suit — Not examinable at threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on facts.

Trial court treated dismissal of O.S. No.372 of 2015 by XII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada as a ground to reject the plaint, holding there was no cause of action and suit was barred.

High Court noted that:

  • Against the decree in O.S. No.372 of 2015, A.S. No.261 of 2023 is pending;

  • Plaintiffs stated that certain documents were not challenged in O.S. No.372 of 2015 on legal advice that they were void ab initio and did not require cancellation.

Held that questions whether:

(a) there was omission to claim a relief on the same cause of action;
(b) leave under Order II Rule 2(3) CPC should or should not be granted;
(c) there was relinquishment of any part of the claim and, if so, whether it was intentional;
(d) or whether res judicata operates,

are not pure questions of law but are questions of fact or mixed questions of law and fact which must be determined at trial after registration of suit. These issues cannot be made the basis for rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC at the preliminary stage.
(Paras 34–38)

5. COURT-FEES — ANDHRA PRADESH COURT-FEES AND SUITS VALUATION ACT, 1956 — Sections 63 and 64 — Rejection of plaint set aside and plaint ordered to be received — Refund of court fee on appeal.

After setting aside the order of rejection of plaint and directing the trial court to receive the plaint and register the suit, the Court considered entitlement of appellants to refund of court fee paid on memorandum of appeal under Sections 63 and 64 of the A.P. Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1956, relying on Veluru Prabhavathi v. Sirigireddy Arjun Reddy.

Held, where a plaint rejected by the lower court is ordered to be received, the appellate court may direct refund of full court fee paid on the memorandum of appeal. Appellants held entitled to refund of court fee paid on the appeal; Registry directed to refund the same into the bank account of any one of the appellants on their furnishing details.
(Paras 39–45, 47(iii)–(v))

6. RESULT — Appeal allowed — Rejection of plaint set aside — Suit to be registered and proceeded with — No order as to costs.

Appeal under Section 96 r/w Order 41 Rule 1 CPC allowed; order dated 06.05.2025 in G.L. No.1148 dated 07.03.2025 of II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada rejecting plaint at registration stage set aside; plaint directed to be received and suit registered in the same court; refund of court fee on appeal ordered; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed.
(Paras 46–49)


I. Factual Matrix (as emerging from the judgment)

  1. Parties and properties

  • Plaintiffs/appellants:

    • Gummadi Usha Rani (1st plaintiff/appellant)

    • Gutta Sunitha (2nd plaintiff/appellant)

  • Defendants/respondents: array of subsequent purchasers / transferees (Defendants 1–13) in respect of plots carved out from “A”, “B” and “C” schedule properties situated in and around Bhavanipuram / Ibrahimpatnam area.

  1. Nature of the present suit

From the relief clause:

  • Suit is for:

    • Declaration that plaintiffs are absolute owners of:

      • Plaint “B” schedule properties; and

      • Plaint “C” schedule properties,

    • By holding a series of registered sale deeds and a GPA (executed by original parties and subsequent transferees in favour of defendants 5–13) as null and void and not binding on plaintiffs.

    • Consequential recovery of possession of plaint “B” and “C” schedule properties from specified defendants.

    • Multiple permanent injunctions against alienation and interference with possession.

    • Costs and other appropriate reliefs.

The suit is thus clearly framed as a composite action:

  • declaration of title,

  • cancellation/nullity of certain sale deeds / transactions,

  • and recovery of possession, with consequential injunctions.

  1. Office objection and trial court’s approach

  • On 05.03.2025, office of II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, raised a single objection:

    “How the suit is within limitation? Explain.”

  • Representation by plaintiffs’ counsel (07.03.2025):

    • Suit is “comprehensive” (declaration + recovery of possession).

    • Law does not prescribe a specific limitation for “recovery of possession by a true owner” except Articles 64 and 65.

    • Outer limit (Art. 65) would prevail; suit is within limitation.

    • Limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and at registration stage Court should look only at prima facie assertion in plaint.

    • If Chief Ministerial Officer not satisfied, matter may go before Court.

  • The matter is placed before II ADJ; by order dated 06.05.2025, the plaint is rejected on two principal grounds:

    1. Suit is barred by limitation; and

    2. Suit is without any cause of action, especially in light of earlier suit O.S. No.372 of 2015.

  1. Material relied upon by trial court to reject plaint

From para 4 and 6 of the trial court’s reasoning extracted in the judgment:

  • The trial court:

    • Looked into earlier suit O.S. No.372 of 2015 filed by present plaintiffs, decided on 13.02.2023 by XII ADJ, Vijayawada.

    • Considered judgments, written statements, and statements in other suits like O.S. No.1084/2018, O.S. No.80/2019.

    • Found that:

      • Layout of A-schedule property was approved in 1990s;

      • Several sale deeds in favour of purchasers (present defendants) were executed between 1995–2003;

      • O.S. 372/2015 was dismissed on finding that 1st plaintiff had sold 1638 sq. yds. under six sale deeds;

      • Plaintiffs, having lost in O.S. 372/2015, filed a “fresh round of litigation” by clubbing properties and challenging the same chain of transactions.

  • The trial court then applied Uma Devi (SC) and concluded:

    • Registered documents are notice to the whole world;

    • Since sale deeds date back to 1996–2003, plaintiffs must be deemed to have knowledge then;

    • Plaintiffs “kept quiet” and filed present suit beyond limitation, after dismissal of O.S. 372/2015;

    • The suit is barred by limitation, based on an “illusory cause of action” created by “clever pleading”.

  1. Plaint averments on cause of action and limitation

The High Court notes:

  • Cause of action paragraph (para IV): detailed dates when cause of action first arose and subsequently continued.

  • Limitation paragraph (para VIII):

    • 1st plaintiff was cross-examined on 15.12.2021 in O.S. No.372/2015.

    • Certain questions in cross-examination prompted investigation.

    • In first week of January 2022, plaintiffs came to know that defendants had created “concocted void-ab initio documents” without plaintiffs’ knowledge and consent.

    • In February 2023, defendants 6 and 7 allegedly occupied plaint schedule properties.

    • Hence, suit is within limitation from date of knowledge and subsequent dispossession.

  1. Procedural history

  • Against rejection of plaint (06.05.2025), plaintiffs first filed C.R.P. No.1440 of 2025.

  • C.R.P. was withdrawn with liberty to file appeal, because rejection of plaint is deemed decree under Section 2(2) CPC.

  • Hence Appeal Suit No.409 of 2025 u/S 96 r/w O.41 R.1 CPC.

  1. Earlier suit O.S. No.372 of 2015

  • Filed by present plaintiffs for declaration that 2nd plaintiff is absolute owner of specified extent out of ‘A’ schedule.

  • Dismissed by XII ADJ, Vijayawada.

  • Against that decree, A.S. No.261/2023 is pending before High Court.

  • Plaintiffs state that certain documents were not challenged in that suit on advice that they were void ab initio and required no cancellation.

II. Legal Issues Framed

The High Court crystallises two points (para 11–12):

  1. Point A:
    Whether rejection of plaint at registration stage under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on ground of:

    • “suit barred by limitation”; and

    • “no cause of action”

    is legally justified?

  2. Point B:
    Whether appellants are entitled to refund of court fee paid on the appeal?

III. Analysis of Law and Its Application to the Facts

A. Limitation — Declaration + Possession — Mixed question of fact and law

  1. Governing legal framework

The Court relies on a line of Supreme Court decisions, especially:

  • N. Thajudeen v. Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board:

    • For declaration suits, limitation is under Part III, Articles 56–58; for “other declarations” (including declaration of title) Article 58 applies (3 years from when right to sue first accrues).

    • When declaration is coupled with recovery of possession based on title, the relief of declaration becomes ancillary, and limitation is governed by Article 65 (12 years from when possession of defendant becomes adverse to plaintiff).

    • A suit for declaration of title to immovable property is not barred so long as the right to such property continues to subsist (following C. Mohammad Yunus v. Syed Unnissa).

  • Thankamma George v. Lilly Thomas:

    • Under Article 58, the starting point has two limbs:

      • date of execution; and

      • date of knowledge.

    • Limitation from date of execution can apply only if knowledge at or about registration is proved; knowledge cannot just be presumed.

  • P. Kumarakurubaran v. P. Narayana:

    • Where limitation turns on date of knowledge or disputed factual matrix, it is a mixed question of fact and law requiring evidence; cannot be decided at Order VII Rule 11 stage.

  1. Application to the present plaint

  • The present suit is not a pure declaration suit. It seeks:

    • declaration of title,

    • declaration of nullity/non-binding nature of sale deeds/GPA,

    • and recovery of possession based on title, with injunctions.

  • On the face of the plaint:

    • The plaintiffs specifically plead that:

      • they came to know of the impugned documents only in January 2022 (post cross-examination on 15.12.2021 in O.S. 372/2015);

      • physical intrusion/occupation occurred in Feb 2023.

    • They thus explicitly base limitation on date of knowledge and recent dispossession.

  • The trial court, however:

    • Ignores the limitation paragraph and cause-of-action paragraph;

    • Treats the dates of registration of sale deeds (1996–2003) as the conclusive starting point of limitation;

    • Treats registration as notice to plaintiffs by legal fiction, without allowing them to rebut with actual evidence of knowledge.

  1. High Court’s conclusion on limitation

  • At Order VII Rule 11 stage, only plaint averments must be taken as true and correct on their face.

  • The question whether:

    • plaintiffs had actual or constructive knowledge of the sale deeds earlier; or

    • limitation started in 1996–2003, or only after 2021–2022;

    • and whether the suit is governed by Article 58 or Article 65,

    are all mixed questions of law and fact, requiring evidence.

  • The Court holds (paras 25–27, 31–32):

    • Registration is, no doubt, “notice to the whole world”, but:

      • that presumption can be rebutted;

      • when the plaint itself pleads a later date of knowledge, limitation becomes a matter for trial, not for summary rejection.

    • The trial court’s approach of imputing knowledge solely due to registration and rejecting the plaint at the threshold is legally unsustainable.

So, on facts and on law:

  • The suit cannot be said to be ex facie barred by limitation from the plaint alone.

  • There is a triable issue on limitation:

    • whether the plaintiffs’ claim of late knowledge is true and credible,

    • whether Article 65 applies because relief is possession based on title,

    • whether right to property continued to subsist.

Hence, Order VII Rule 11 could not be invoked on limitation at the registration stage.

B. Order VII Rule 11 CPC — Scope — “Clever drafting” vs genuine cause of action

  1. Legal standard

Citing Vinod Infra Developers, Uma Devi, Mukund Bhavan Trust, Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy, etc., the High Court reiterates the well-known propositions:

  • At Order VII Rule 11 stage:

    • Court must confine itself to the plaint;

    • Defence, written statement, and external materials generally cannot be looked at to reject plaint.

  • If after meaningful reading of the plaint as a whole:

    • plaint does not disclose cause of action; or

    • is barred by any law on the face of it;
      then rejecting the plaint is permissible.

  • “Clever drafting”:

    • If plaintiff, by artful pleading, creates an illusion of cause of action to evade an apparent bar, the court may “nip it in the bud”;

    • However, this requires careful analysis of the plaint itself, not reliance on external assumptions.

  1. Error in trial court’s approach

  • The High Court finds that the II ADJ did not read the plaint as a whole:

    • The judgment “completely missed” the plaint paragraphs on cause of action and limitation.

  • The trial court:

    • Relied on:

      • previous suit O.S. 372/2015,

      • documents produced there,

      • revenue entries and transactions in 1990s–2003,

    • and used these to declare present suit barred by limitation and without cause of action.

  • This effectively:

    • Went into merits, beyond the four corners of the plaint; and

    • Treated disputed facts (knowledge, adverse possession, effect of prior suit) as conclusively proved at the threshold.

The High Court therefore holds:

  • The standard under Order VII Rule 11 was misapplied.

  • This is not a case of mere “clever drafting” where cause of action is illusory — there are specific factual pleadings of:

    • title,

    • chain of transactions,

    • date of knowledge,

    • recent dispossession.

  • These require trial; they cannot be dismissed as vexatious or meritless simply at the registration stage.

C. Earlier suit O.S. No.372 of 2015 — Order II Rule 2, res judicata, bar of second suit

  1. Trial court’s use of earlier suit

  • Trial court considered that:

    • Plaintiffs had already litigated in O.S. 372/2015, lost there, and are now initiating “fresh round of litigation” against subsequent purchasers.

  1. High Court’s treatment

The High Court clearly distinguishes:

  • Order II Rule 2 CPC questions:

    • Whether plaintiffs omitted to sue for some relief in earlier suit;

    • Whether they intentionally relinquished any part of claim;

    • Whether they can now sue for omitted relief without leave.

  • Res judicata / no cause of action questions:

    • Whether issues on title, validity of documents, etc., were directly and substantially in issue and finally decided in O.S. 372/2015;

    • Whether these findings operate as res judicata.

The Court notes:

  • Appeal A.S. No.261/2023 is pending against the decree in O.S. 372/2015.

  • Plaintiffs themselves plead:

    • They did not challenge certain documents in O.S. 372/2015 due to legal advice that those documents were void ab initio and did not need to be set aside.

  1. Why these cannot be decided under Order VII Rule 11

The High Court holds (paras 34–38):

  • Questions under Order II Rule 2 and res judicata are:

    • Not pure questions of law; they involve factual investigation into:

      • nature of cause of action in the earlier suit,

      • what reliefs were claimed / omitted,

      • whether any omission was intentional,

      • whether leave under Order II Rule 2(3) could or should have been sought.

  • They must be decided:

    • after pleadings are completed,

    • issues framed,

    • and evidence led.

Therefore:

  • The trial court could not use O.S. 372/2015 and its dismissal as a ground to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11.

  • Whether second suit is barred by Order II Rule 2 and/or res judicata is a matter for trial, not for registration stage.

D. Court Fee Refund — Sections 63 and 64 A.P. Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act, 1956

  1. Statutory scheme

  • Section 63: court’s discretion to refund fee when plaint/appeal is rejected due to delay or deficit fee not being paid in time etc.

  • Section 64(1):

    • When a plaint or memorandum of appeal rejected by lower court is ordered to be received, the appellate court may direct refund of full amount of court fee paid on memorandum of appeal.

  1. Precedent relied upon

  • Veluru Prabhavathi v. Sirigireddy Arjun Reddy:

    • Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 was set aside in appeal;

    • Suit remanded for disposal on merits;

    • High Court directed refund of court fee paid in the appeal under Section 64.

  1. Application to present case

  • In A.S. 409/2025:

    • Rejection order dated 06.05.2025 is set aside.

    • Plaint is directed to be received and suit registered.

  • Following Section 64 and Veluru Prabhavathi:

    • Court directs refund of entire court fee paid on memorandum of appeal.

    • Refund to be made to bank account of any one appellant, subject to appellants furnishing bank details.

Thus, Point B also is decided in favour of appellants.

IV. Result and Practical Takeaways

  1. Result

  • Appeal allowed.

  • Order rejecting plaint under O7 R11 CPC set aside.

  • Trial court directed to:

    • receive the plaint,

    • register the suit,

    • proceed in accordance with law.

  • Full refund of appeal court fee directed.

  • No order as to costs.

  • Miscellaneous petitions closed.

  1. Key doctrinal takeaways (for your future drafting/argument)

  • Limitation in declaratory + possession suits:

    • Always explicitly plead:

      • nature of suit as title + possession;

      • date of knowledge of impugned documents;

      • if relying on Article 65, emphasise that declaration is ancillary and possession based on title is primary.

    • This judgment reinforces that when date of knowledge is pleaded, limitation is triable and not fit for O7 R11.

  • Order VII Rule 11 strategy:

    • Ensure plaint has:

      • detailed cause-of-action para,

      • separate limitation para,

      • reference to earlier litigations and why present suit is maintainable.

    • Use this judgment to resist attempts by trial courts to rely on earlier suits and documents at registration stage to non-suit the plaintiff.

  • Second suit after earlier dismissal:

    • This judgment is useful to argue that:

      • Order II Rule 2 and res judicata are issues for trial, not registration;

      • If there is a pending appeal against earlier decree, additional caution is required before holding second suit barred.

  • Court fee recovery:

    • When you succeed in appeal against an order rejecting plaint, always press for Section 64 refund with reliance on this judgment and Veluru Prabhavathi.



By advocatemmmohan -

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)