Plaint Rejection Requires Sole Reliance on Plaint Averments; Limitation Based on Knowledge constitutes a Triable Issue.

The Appellant/Plaintiff filed O.S.No.981 of 2017 seeking a declaration that a Gift Settlement Deed dated 18.04.2006 executed by the 2nd Defendant (caretaker/maternal uncle) in favor of the 1st Defendant was null and void, and for consequential recovery of possession.

The Plaintiff claimed title via a 1971 registered Sale Deed and asserted that he only discovered the fraudulent Gift Deed on 10.03.2017 during revenue proceedings.

The Defendants filed I.A.No.1189 of 2017 under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the CPC, contending the suit was barred by limitation and lacked a cause of action.

The Trial Court allowed the application and rejected the plaint, relying on revenue records (pahanies) produced by the Defendants to establish adverse possession and long-standing limitation.

1. Whether the Trial Court can rely on the written statement and documents produced by the defendants (such as pahanies) while adjudicating an application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

2. Whether the suit was ex-facie barred by limitation when the plaintiff specifically pleaded a date of knowledge to establish the starting point of limitation.

The Court primarily applied Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the CPC regarding the rejection of a plaint for lack of cause of action or being barred by law.

It relied on the principle from Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra that only averments in the plaint are germane, and the written statement is irrelevant.

It further applied the doctrine from Chhotanben v. Kirtibhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar and P. Kumarakurubaran v. P. Narayanan, which establishes that when the date of knowledge of a transaction is specifically pleaded, limitation becomes a mixed question of fact and law that cannot be summarily decided at the threshold.

Additionally, it applied the principle that a plea of adverse possession requires strict proof of nec vi, nec clam, nec precario and cannot be assumed at the rejection stage [Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Govt. of India].

The High Court reasoned that the Trial Court committed a manifest error by conducting a "roving enquiry" into the Defendants' evidence (pahanies) instead of confining itself to the plaint's four corners.

Under Order VII Rule 11, the Court must assume the plaint's averments are true; here, the Plaintiff categorically pleaded discovering the Gift Deed in 2017, meaning the suit was filed within the three-year window under Article 58 of the Limitation Act.

The Court observed that the Plaintiff’s claim of "permissive possession" (entrusting the land to a caretaker) diametrically opposes the Defendants' claim of "adverse possession," creating a triable issue of fact that requires a full-fledged trial rather than summary rejection.

The High Court noted that as long as the plaint discloses some cause of action or triable issue, it cannot be rejected in its entirety.

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order and decree dated 08.02.2019. The suit (O.S.No.981 of 2017) is restored to the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, for trial on merits.