AP High Court Quashes Order Rejecting Title Suit On Ground Of Limitation, Says Trial Court Didn't Read Plaint 'Meaningfully'
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has set aside a trial court order which rejected a suit seeking declaration of title, recovery of possession on the grounds that it was barred by limitation and disclosed no new cause of action.
In doing so the high court said that the trial court had rejected the case without "meaningfully" reading the plaint as a whole.
The reason attributed by the Trial Court for rejection of the plaint was that the documents relating to a particular schedule property were registered and their registration operated as notice to the whole world. The trial court had further reasoned that the plaint was barred by limitation and the plaintiffs had not filed any suit within the period prescribed to challenge the registered documents.
The trial court had also concluded that no fresh cause of action arose, especially after the dismissal of an earlier suit filed by the plaintiffs, and that through the suit, the plaintiffs had created an illusion of a cause of action with clever pleadings while ignoring their failure to initiate the suit within a reasonable period of limitation.
Noting that the plaint was within the period of limitation, a division bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam held,
“We are of the view that at this stage knowledge could not be imputed to plaintiffs only because of the registration of the sale deeds. At this stage only the plaint averments are to be considered and are to be taken as true and correct on their face value. A perusal of the plaint, inter alia, shows that in para-IV, the cause of action, the plaintiffs have given in detail as to when the cause of action arose for the first time and thereafter continuously on different dates. In para–VIII Limitation, the plaintiffs stated that the 1st plaintiff was cross-examined on 15.12.2021 inO.S.No.372 of 2015, wherein she was posed certain questions, which lead the plaintiffs to investigate into the issue. In the 1st week of January, 2022, when the plaintiffs came to know that the defendants created, concocted void-ab initio documents without knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs. In the month of February, 2023, the defendants 6 and 7 occupied the plaint schedule properties. Hence, the claim of the plaintiffs was within the limitation.”
Noting that the plaint was not read as a whole by the Trial Court, the High Court concluded,
“… the entire plaint has not been read as a whole. There is no meaningful reading of the plaint. It is so evident from reading of the impugned judgment which completely missed the paras relating to cause of action and the limitation in particular.”
Background:
The appellants (original plaintiffs) submitted that the registered sale deeds and General Power of Attorney, in favour of the defendants, were null and void, and that in a suit of such nature, there shall be no period of limitation and only after the defendants' appearance and taking the plea of adverse possession, that the period of limitation would be 12 years from the date of adverse possession.
It was submitted that limitation, in the present case, was not a pure question of law and that the Trial Court should have registered the suit and after the appearance of the defendants, if the occasion had so arisen, the plea for rejection of the plaint ought to have been considered.
Findings
With respect to the ground of rejection of plaint, the Court held,
“We are of the view that in this case considering the plaint pleadings, it cannot be said that the period of limitation is a pure question of law. It is a mixed question of law and fact which could not be considered for rejection of plaint as “barred by law‟ under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. It required evidence and proof during trial to determine the period of limitation as also the time from which the limitation would begin to run.”
The Court further observed that questions such as—whether the dismissal of the earlier suit operated as a bar to institute a fresh suit or whether the decree in the said suit operated as res judicata, were those which required consideration after registration of the suit during trial. The Court thus stated,
“The question of the second suit whether barred by law under Order 2 Rule 2 C.P.C, cannot be decided under Order 7 Rule 11 at the preliminary stage of registration. As per Order 2 Rule 2 C.P.C every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action where the plaintiff omits to sue in respect of or intentionally relinquishes any portion of his claim, he shall not after words sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished. However, as per sub rule (3) of rule 2, the plaintiff may sue for the omitted relief in respect of same cause of action, with the leave of the Court.”
The court said that in view of clear averments with respect to the cause of action, and limitation– the date of knowledge of the void, ab initio documents–it could not be recorded by the trial court that the suit was barred by limitation.
"The plea of limitation, the date of knowledge, and from what date the period of limitation would begin to run, in the present case, was the subject matter of determination only on evidence, during trial and not at this stage of registration of plaint,” the Court added.
Allowing the appeal the high court set aside the rejection order and directed the trial court receive the plaint and register the suit and to proceed as per law.
Case Title: Gummadi Usha Rani & another v. Guduru Venkateswara Rao and others
Case Number: A.S. No.409 OF 2025