Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint cannot be rejected as time-barred when limitation is a mixed question of law and fact | Supreme Court
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India set aside a High Court judgement that had rejected a civil suit on the grounds of limitation, affirming that when the date of knowledge is pleaded, the limitation issue becomes a mixed question of law and fact requiring trial. The decision was rendered by a Division Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan.
The apex court found that the High Court of Judicature at Madras erred in allowing a civil revision petition and rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, solely on the ground of limitation, without allowing the parties to lead evidence.
The dispute originated from a suit filed by the appellant, P. Kumarakurubaran, in O.S. No. 310 of 2014 before the Principal District Court, Chengalpet. The reliefs sought included a declaration of ownership over the suit property, declarations rendering certain sale and settlement deeds null and void, and permanent injunctions restraining the respondents from interfering with the appellant’s possession or registering documents related to the disputed property.
The appellant claimed that he had been assigned the land by the Special Tahsildar, Saidapet, Tamil Nadu, on 05.05.1974, and that he had built a roof house on it. He later executed a power of attorney in favour of his father in 1978 for purposes related to construction and legal representation. However, he alleged that his father misused this authority by executing a sale deed dated 10.10.1988 in favour of Defendant No.1, the appellant's granddaughter, which was registered in 1993. The appellant contended that the power of attorney did not authorize the sale of the property.
The appellant stated that he became aware of these transactions only in 2011, following which he lodged a land grabbing complaint with the Additional Commissioner of Police on 09.12.2011 and applied for patta and building objections in 2012. The suit was filed in December 2014.
During the pendency of the suit, the respondents filed I.A. No. 151 of 2015 seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, claiming the suit was undervalued and barred by limitation. The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram, dismissed the application on 04.10.2017, holding that the grounds required trial.
However, the High Court, in CRP (NPD) No. 131 of 2018, reversed this finding and allowed the revision petition, holding that the suit was barred by limitation as it was filed more than three years after the alleged date of knowledge, as governed by Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court reiterated that under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, a suit to cancel or set aside an instrument must be filed within three years from the date the plaintiff first had knowledge of the transaction. However, the Court stressed that "the emphasis under Article 59 is not on the date of the transaction per se, but on the accrual of the cause of action".
The Court observed that the appellant had specifically pleaded that knowledge of the impugned documents came in 2011 and took subsequent legal steps including objections and a police complaint. Accordingly, it held:
"Once the date of knowledge is specifically pleaded and forms the basis of the cause of action, the issue of limitation cannot be decided summarily. It becomes a mixed question of law and fact, which cannot be adjudicated at the threshold stage under Order VII Rule 11 CPC."
The Court found that the High Court had erred in assuming that the appellant had constructive notice of the 1988 transaction for over 26 years, despite specific pleadings to the contrary. It stated that such assumptions cannot override the necessity for trial when disputed factual elements exist.
Referring to its own prior decisions in Chhotanben v. Kirtibhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar and Salim D. Agboatwala v. Shamalji Oddhavji Thakkar, the Court restated that when limitation is in question and the plaintiff has pleaded a specific date of knowledge, "the same has to be accepted at the stage of considering the application under Order 7 Rule 11".
On the scope of the power of attorney, the Court noted:
"There is no express clause authorizing his father to sell the suit property to any person without the appellant’s consent and knowledge. Yet, the appellant’s father executed a sale deed... which raises serious doubt about misuse of authority and potential fraud."
The Court concluded that these factual controversies warranted evidence-based adjudication and could not be resolved summarily.
The Court held:"The judgment and order dated 03.09.2020 passed by the High Court in CRP (NPD) No. 131 of 2018 is set aside and the order dated 04.10.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge, Chengalpattu in I.A. No. 151 of 2015 in O.S. No. 310 of 2014 is affirmed."
The Court restored the suit for trial and directed that: "The trial Court shall proceed without being influenced by any of the observations made by the High Court."
The appeal was accordingly allowed. No order as to costs
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. K. K. Mani, Advocate-on-Record; Ms. T. Archana, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. S. Nandakumar, Senior Advocate; M/s. KSN & Co., Advocate-on-Record; Mr. Siddharth Naidu, Advocate; Mr. V. Balachandran, Advocate; Ms. Deepika Nandakumar, Advocate; Mr. Viresh Kumar Bhawra, Advocate; Ms. Aisha Bansal, Advocate; Mr. Naresh Kumar, Advocate-on-Record.
Case Title: P. Kumarakurubaran v. P. Narayanan & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 598
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 5622 of 2025 (Arising from SLP (C) No. 2549 of 2021)
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice R. Mahadevan
[Read/Download order]
