A later alienation cannot revive limitation when the plaintiff’s pleadings establish earlier knowledge of an adverse title.

The respondent-plaintiff instituted O.S. No. 1705/2021 seeking a declaration of absolute ownership and possession over the suit property under a registered sale deed dated 15 February 1962, a declaration that the sale deed dated 2 September 2020 executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of defendant 3 was not binding on him, and a permanent injunction.

The plaintiff pleaded that he discovered adverse revenue entries in 2012, challenged them before the revenue authorities, pursued a revision petition, and thereafter filed W.P. No. 24001/2014.

He had also instituted an earlier injunction suit, O.S. No. 219/2014, which was decreed ex parte.

The defendants sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, contending that the suit was barred by limitation because the plaintiff’s right to sue first accrued when he became aware of the adverse claim in 2012 or, at the latest, during the contested revenue proceedings in 2014.

The trial court dismissed the application, holding that limitation was a matter for trial and that the plaint did not expressly disclose a bar by limitation.

The defendant-petitioner challenged that order under Section 115 CPC.

Whether the plaint itself disclosed that the plaintiff’s right to seek a declaration first accrued in 2012 or, at the latest, in 2014, thereby rendering the 2021 suit barred under Article 58 of the Limitation Act?

Whether the plaintiff’s proceedings before the revenue authorities could be considered for determining when he became aware of the defendants’ adverse claim, notwithstanding that revenue authorities could not finally adjudicate title?

Whether the 2020 sale deed and the alleged interference in 2021 constituted a fresh cause of action, and whether rejecting the plaint on that basis would amount to impermissible partial rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC?

The Court applied Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, under which a plaint must be rejected where, on a meaningful and complete reading of its averments, the suit appears to be barred by law; the court ordinarily considers the plaint and its documents, not the defence.

Article 58 of the Limitation Act prescribes three years for a declaratory suit, commencing when the right to sue first accrues, and subsequent events ordinarily do not restart limitation.

The Court relied on Nikhila Divyang Mehta v. Hitesh P. Sanghvi, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 779, for the mandatory application of limitation and the principle that limitation runs from the first accrual of the cause of action.

The Court relied on T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467, and Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal, (2017) 13 SCC 174, for rejecting vexatious suits or suits rendered maintainable only through clever drafting.

The Court relied on Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust v. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle, (2024) 15 SCC 675, for the proposition that an ex facie time-barred suit may be rejected at the threshold.

Although partial rejection of a plaint is ordinarily impermissible, the Court held that where ancillary prayers are founded on the same time-barred declaratory claim and do not disclose an independent cause of action, rejection of the plaint as a whole is permissible.

The Court found that the plaintiff’s own pleadings established knowledge of the competing claim in 2012, when he discovered the adverse mutation entries, obtained relevant records, challenged the entries before the revenue authorities, pursued revision proceedings, and filed a writ petition in 2014.

Although revenue entries do not create or extinguish title and revenue authorities cannot conclusively determine ownership, the proceedings were relevant to show that the plaintiff was aware of a serious and adverse assertion of title.

The pendency of the writ petition and the subsequent ex parte injunction decree did not suspend or restart limitation for the declaratory relief.

Similarly, the 2020 sale deed was only a subsequent transaction based on the pre-existing adverse claim; it did not create a fresh starting point under Article 58.

The challenge to that sale deed and the injunction prayer were dependent upon the plaintiff’s primary assertion of title and therefore did not constitute independent causes of action capable of surviving rejection of the declaratory claim.

The 2020 sale deed, the 2021 alleged interference, the pending writ petition, and the earlier injunction decree did not revive or extend limitation.

The Civil Revision Petition was allowed; the trial court’s order dated 6 April 2026 was set aside; the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC was allowed; and the plaint in O.S. No. 1705/2021 was rejected.