Supreme Court Holds Plaintiffs' Title Suit Not Ex facie Barred by Limitation; Restores Trial Court Order

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra heard appeals arising out of two orders of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh that had allowed a revision challenging the trial court’s refusal to reject a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure and had later refused to recall that ex parte order. The appeals concerned competing claims of title and possession to agricultural land founded on a contested will, mutation entries and claims of natural succession.

The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court’s orders dated 27.01.2022 and 04.07.2022, and restored the trial court’s order refusing to reject the plaint. The bench held that rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) required attention to the plaint averments alone and that mixed questions of law and fact — including whether defendants acquired title by adverse possession — could not be decided at the threshold. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Clause (d) makes it clear that while considering rejection of the plaint thereunder only the averments made in the plaint and nothing else is to be considered to find out whether the suit is barred by law. At this stage, the defense is not to be considered. Thus, whether the suit is barred by any law or not is to be determined on the basis of averments made in the plaint.” The Court also noted that “mutation entries do not confer title. They serve a fiscal purpose, that is, to realize tax from the person whose name is recorded in the revenue records,” and reiterated that a suit for possession founded on title attracts the twelve‑year prescription under Article 65 of the Limitation Act.

Background

The dispute arose from succession to land originally owned by one Ronak Singh (died 1924). After competing claims, Kartar Kaur was held owner by decree dated 11.09.1975 and mutation in her favour was recorded in 1976; she died in 1983. Contesting parties produced a will dated 15.12.1976 alleged to be executed by Kartar Kaur, and mutation proceedings based on that will culminated against the plaintiffs in 2017. The appellants (plaintiffs in the suit) instituted Suit No.424 of 2019 seeking declaration of title through natural succession, possession, mesne profits and injunction, and sought to declare the certificate and mutation entries void as obtained by fraud.

The defendants moved to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) on limitation grounds and pointed to earlier litigation, including a dismissed suit filed in 2012, and argued that the plaintiffs were aware of the will since 1983. The trial court refused to reject the plaint on 07.01.2020, finding limitation and adverse possession to be mixed questions of law and fact. The High Court allowed revision and dismissed an application to recall its ex parte order; those High Court orders were impugned before the Supreme Court.

Relying on settled principles that mutation entries are not conclusive of title and that where a suit seeks multiple reliefs the presence of at least one relief within limitation precluded summary rejection, the Supreme Court analysed precedent including Indira v. Arumugam and recent authorities on plaint rejection. The Court observed that the plaintiffs had pleaded that mutation proceedings concluded in 2017 and the suit was filed within three years thereafter, and that the principal relief sought was possession based on title (Article 65), which could not be summarily disposed of without evidence on adverse possession. The Court therefore held the High Court’s view that the plaint was ex facie barred to be legally unsustainable, restored the trial court’s order and directed that the suit proceed to trial. The Supreme Court clarified that its observations were restricted to the threshold question of plaint rejection and did not express any opinion on the substantive merits. Pending applications were disposed of.

Case No.: 2025 INSC 1238 Case Title: Karam Singh v. Amarjit Singh & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Counsel not indicated in the judgment text] For the Respondent(s): [Counsel not indicated in the judgment text]