Pleading-based rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d) is limited to clear bars on the plaint as a whole; interconnected reliefs need trial.

A plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) only if the bar of limitation is apparent on the face of the plaint read as a whole; isolated pleadings cannot be used to defeat otherwise relevant averments. On the stated pleadings, limitation was not conclusively established at the threshold and required full consideration at trial. Reliefs founded on possession and part performance under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, together with declaration, injunction and consequential relief, were interconnected, so the plaint could not be rejected partially. The asserted entitlement under Section 53A was a matter for trial, not threshold rejection.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the plaint could be rejected at the threshold on the ground of limitation under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and (ii) whether the suit could be rejected on the ground that the reliefs based on Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act were not maintainable.

Issue (i): whether the plaint could be rejected at the threshold on the ground of limitation under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: For deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11(d), the averments in the plaint must be read as a whole. Rejection on limitation is permissible only when the bar is apparent on the face of the plaint. A few isolated passages cannot be relied upon while ignoring other material pleadings showing the cause of action. On the pleadings set out in the plaint, the question of limitation was not ex facie conclusive and required consideration of the full averments.

Conclusion: The plaint could not be rejected on the ground of limitation.

Issue (ii): whether the suit could be rejected on the ground that the reliefs based on Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act were not maintainable.

Analysis: The plaint sought declaration, permanent injunction and consequential reliefs on the basis of possession and part performance. The reliefs were interconnected, and the plaint could not be rejected partially. Whether the plaintiffs were ultimately entitled to relief under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act was a matter for trial, and it could not be said at the threshold that the suit was wholly not maintainable.

Conclusion: The suit could not be rejected on the ground of alleged non-maintainability under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.

Final Conclusion: The order rejecting the plaint was set aside, the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was dismissed, and the trial court's order refusing rejection of the plaint was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: A plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) only when the bar to the suit is apparent from the plaint as a whole, and a plaint cannot be rejected partially where the reliefs are interconnected and the asserted legal entitlement requires trial.

---