Adopted Son’s Suit Over Uncle’s 1991 Land Mutation Can Proceed As His 2024 Discovery Claim Needs Evidence: Gujarat HC

The respondent-plaintiff brought a suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction concerning land owned by his adoptive father, alleging that the petitioner-defendant, his uncle, had fraudulently mutated his name in the revenue record in 1991.

The plaintiff pleaded that he discovered the entry on 12 August 2024, after retirement, and had previously relied on the defendant because of their family relationship.

The defendant sought rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, contending that the suit was time-barred and that the plaintiff’s adoption was invalid.

The trial court rejected that application, prompting this revision under Section 115 CPC.

Under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the court determines whether a plaint is liable to rejection by considering the plaint’s averments as a whole; the defendant’s defence is not germane to that inquiry.

Limitation is ordinarily a mixed question of law and fact where the pleaded date of knowledge is material, and may therefore require evidence rather than rejection at the threshold.

The Court applied Chhotanben v. Kiritbhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar, (2018) 6 SCC 422, which holds that where the plaintiffs plead that they learned of the challenged transaction only later, limitation may be a triable issue.

Section 115 CPC permits revision where the subordinate court has committed a jurisdictional error; the Court found none here.

The plaint alleged that the plaintiff learned of the 1991 mutation only in 2024. Whether he knew of the entry earlier, or only when pleaded, could not be resolved from the plaint alone and required evidence; applying Chhotanben, the Court held that the suit could not be rejected as time-barred at this stage.

The adoption challenge had not been raised in the application before the trial court and was therefore not determined on its merits in the revision.

The Court left open the possibility of raising it before the trial court through an appropriate application, if permissible in law.

It did not decide whether the adoption was valid, but stated that the defendant could raise that issue before the trial court by an appropriate application, if permissible in law; any such application must be decided after hearing the parties and in accordance with law.