P&H HC Keeps Land-Inheritance Suit Alive, Says When Plaintiffs Learned of Will-Based Mutations Requires Evidence

The petitioner-defendant challenged the trial court’s dismissal of her application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC to reject the plaintiffs’ plaint.

The petitioner argued that the suit was time-barred because the plaintiff knew of the disputed mutations, allegedly sanctioned on the basis of an unregistered Will, while acting as the petitioner’s husband’s legal guardian when he was a minor.

The plaint, however, pleaded that limitation began when the plaintiff acquired knowledge of the mutations.

The trial court left limitation for determination at trial, and the petitioner sought supervisory review under Article 227.

Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the court determines whether a plaint is liable to rejection by considering its averments as a whole; the defendant’s case cannot be used to supplement or contradict those pleadings at the threshold.

A plaint may be rejected where a statutory bar, including limitation, is apparent from its own averments, and clever drafting cannot overcome such a bar (*Raghwendra Sharan Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singh* and *Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali*).

Where limitation depends on disputed facts, it may constitute a mixed question of law and fact requiring evidence.

Article 227 confers supervisory jurisdiction, which warrants interference where the impugned order suffers from illegality, perversity, or material infirmity.

The plaint alleged that limitation began when the plaintiff acquired knowledge of the mutations.

The petitioner’s contention that the plaintiff had earlier knowledge because she acted as guardian for the petitioner’s husband was based on facts not pleaded in the plaint.

Those assertions could not be imported into the Order VII Rule 11 inquiry to establish prior knowledge.

Because the alleged limitation bar was not conclusively apparent from the plaint and required factual determination, the cited Supreme Court decisions did not require rejection of the plaint at this stage.

The trial court therefore properly left the issue for determination after framing an appropriate issue and receiving evidence.

The revision petition was dismissed; the Court clarified that its observations did not determine the merits of the underlying dispute, and any pending miscellaneous applications stood disposed of.