Plaint must be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 when clever drafting creates an illusion of limitation.

The dispute concerns survey No. 294/1 in village Nainod, Indore. The plaintiffs (respondents No. 1 to 3) claimed title through a 1985 sale deed executed in favor of their predecessor, Surendra Singh

After Surendra Singh’s death in 2017, the plaintiffs discovered that the land was mutated in the names of the defendants (applicants) based on a suspicious Will dated 18.12.1978

The plaintiffs obtained certified copies of the revenue records (Khasra) on 30.06.2021, revealing the adverse entries

They filed a suit for declaration and injunction on 21.08.2024

The defendants filed applications under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, arguing the suit was barred by limitation and lacked a claim for possession. The Trial Court dismissed these applications on 01.12.2025

1. Whether the suit for declaration was barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, given that the right to sue "first" accrued more than three years prior to filing

2. Whether the plaint was liable for rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d) for being barred by law despite "clever drafting" of subsequent causes of action

3. Whether a suit for mere declaration and injunction is maintainable under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act when the plaintiffs are not in recorded possession

Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC for rejection of a plaint barred by law

Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which mandates that a suit for declaration must be filed within three years from when the right to sue first accrues

Followed Khatri Hotels v. Union of India (2011), establishing that successive violations do not revive limitation if the first accrual of the right occurred earlier

Applied principles from T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal (1977) and Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (2020), which dictate that "clever drafting" creating an illusion of a cause of action should be nipped in the bud

Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act regarding the necessity of claiming further relief (possession)

The High Court observed that according to paragraph 4 of the plaint, the plaintiffs obtained the Khasra records on 30.06.2021, which served as the date the right to sue "first" accrued. Since the suit was filed on 21.07.2024 (exceeding the three-year period), it was time-barred under Article 58

The Court noted that the plaintiffs attempted to circumvent this by pleading subsequent causes of action (e.g., threats to vacate in 2024), but held that under Section 9 of the Limitation Act, once time begins to run, it is not arrested by subsequent events

Furthermore, the Court found the plaintiffs were not in possession and their failure to seek the consequential relief of possession rendered the suit non-maintainable under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act

The Trial Court erred by treating limitation as a mixed question of fact and law when the bar was apparent from the face of the plaint averments

The applications under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC were allowed, resulting in the rejection of the plaint and dismissal of the suit. No order as to costs