TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 1436
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dent no.8), Sandeep Singh (i.e., respondent no.6) and Major Singh (i.e., respondent no.7) for: (i) declaring: (a) plaintiff(s) owners of suit land to the extent of their shares as specified in the plaint; and (b) the certificate, registered at 277 on 12.01.1977, and mutation no.1377 as illegal, null and void; (ii) possession of suit land to the extent of plaintiffs' share; (iii) damages/ compensation/ mesne profits for use and occupation of suit land for the period starting from May 2016 to May 2019; and (iv) permanent prohibitory injunction. 4. The plaint case in a nutshell was that the original owner of the suit land was Ronak Singh alias Ronaki who died intestate on 05.10.1924, leaving behind his widow Kartar Kaur. A dispute arose regarding succession to the estate of Ronak Singh between Kartar Kaur (i.e. Ronak Singh's widow) and Chinki and Nikki (i.e. sisters of Ronak Singh), predecessor-in interest of the plaintiffs. In between, Kartar Kaur allegedly gifted the suit land to one Harchand. Nikki and Chinki challenged the gift. On 22.03.1935, the civil court held the gift to be invalid as Kartar Kaur had a limited right. Later, Kartar Kaur h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC vide order dated 17.05.2013. It was thus claimed that the suit was also barred by Order 2 Rule 2 of C.P.C. 6. The trial court rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, vide order dated 07.01.2020, holding that on a plain reading of the plaint it cannot be held that the suit is ex facie barred by limitation; moreover, the question of limitation is a mixed of question of law and fact therefore, it would not be appropriate to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. As regards the plea of suit being barred by Order 2 Rule 2 of C.P.C., the trial court held that the same can be decided as an issue in the suit. 7. Aggrieved by rejection of their application under Order 7 Rule 11, the contesting respondents preferred revision before the High Court which came to be allowed by the impugned order dated 27.01.2022. 8. As the impugned order dated 27.01.2022 was passed ex-parte in as much as none had appeared on behalf of the plaintiff in the revision, an application was filed for recall of the order dated 27.01.2022, which came to be dismissed by second impugned order dated 04.07.2022. 9. Aggrieved by the aforesaid two orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....21] DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS 15. Before we assess the correctness of the impugned orders, we must remind ourselves of the basic principles governing rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 [11. Rejection of plaint. -- The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:- (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; (e) where it is not filed in duplicate; (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9: Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....escriptive period, the plaintiff cannot be nonsuited. Consequently, when a suit is instituted for possession, based on title, to defeat the suit on the ground of adverse possession, the burden is on the defendant to prove adverse possession for the prescriptive period. This, therefore, in our view, cannot be an issue on which the plaint could be rejected at the threshold. Moreover, the plaintiffs herein, had clearly disclosed that they had been contesting the will in the mutation proceedings which culminated in the year 2017. The suit was instituted within three years thereafter to declare the mutation entry illegal. Thus, considering that mutation proceedings are summary in nature, the institution of the regular suit questioning the same is not ex facie barred by law [See: Jitendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 802; Faqruddin (Dead) through LRs v. Tajuddin (Dead) through LRs, (2008) 8 SCC 12; Rajinder Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir & others, (2008) 9 SCC 368]. 19. That apart, where several reliefs are sought in suit, if any one of the reliefs is within the period of limitation, the plaint cannot be rejected as barred by law by taking recou....