https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469957 A plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) only when the bar of law is apparent from the plaint itself. On the pleaded facts, the suit for possession based on title through succession, along with a challenge to the defendants' will and mutation entries, raised mixed questions of law and fact; mutation was only fiscal, and limitation was not ex facie established because Article 65 of the Limitation Act applied and adverse possession had to be proved by the defendant. The suit was also not prima facie barred by Order 2 Rule 2, as the earlier suit had not been tried on merits. The plaint could not be summarily rejected and the suit was directed to proceed on merits. en-us Wed, 15 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Jul 2026 22:36:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469957 A plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) only when the bar of law is apparent from the plaint itself. On the pleaded facts, the suit for possession based on title through succession, along with a challenge to the defendants' will and mutation entries, raised mixed questions of law and fact; mutation was only fiscal, and limitation was not ex facie established because Article 65 of the Limitation Act applied and adverse possession had to be proved by the defendant. The suit was also not prima facie barred by Order 2 Rule 2, as the earlier suit had not been tried on merits. The plaint could not be summarily rejected and the suit was directed to proceed on merits. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 15 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469957