Plaint disclosing triable issues regarding accrual of cause of action cannot be rejected as time-barred.

The plaintiffs (parents) alleged they provided funds to their son, Tushar Shah, to purchase two properties in 2010 and 2011 while they were residing in the USA

The properties were registered in the son's name for convenience.

On 27.02.2020, the son executed an affidavit acknowledging the parents as the real owners

Following the son's death on 28.10.2020, the plaintiffs filed a suit in 2022 for a declaration of title and permanent injunction against the daughter-in-law (defendant)

The Trial Court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC, holding it barred by limitation

The First Appellate Court reversed this, restoring the suit

The defendant appealed to the High Court

1. Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC as being barred by the law of limitation.

2. Whether the "right to sue" first accrued at the time of the property purchase (2010-11) or upon the assertion of adverse claims by the defendant following the son's death.

Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which mandates rejection of a plaint where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law

Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribes a three-year limitation period for obtaining a declaration, commencing when the "right to sue first accrues"

The principle from Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanushali, asserting that for Order VII Rule 11, only averments in the plaint and supporting documents must be considered, not the defense

The Court reasoned that for the purposes of Order VII Rule 11, the judge must look exclusively at the plaint's averments

The plaintiffs asserted that the cause of action arose only after the son's death in 2020 and the subsequent denial of their rights by the defendant in 2021

The Court found that while the properties were bought in 2010-11, there was no dispute until the son’s demise; thus, the "right to sue" did not necessarily accrue at the time of purchase

Furthermore, the court held that the evidentiary value of the 2020 affidavit and the source of funding are mixed questions of fact and law that require a full trial

The Court concluded that the Trial Court erred by conducting a "mini-trial" and looking beyond the plaint to dismiss the suit at the threshold

The Court held that the suit was not ex-facie barred by limitation at the threshold stage because the cause of action, as pleaded, involved triable issues regarding when the threat to the plaintiffs' title first arose

The Trial Court was directed to decide the matter on merits without being influenced by the observations made during the interlocutory proceedings