2007 (10) TMI 693 - SC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of plaint - maintainability of the application questioned on the ground that once the court is seized of an application filed by him under Order VII Rule 11 CPC - suit filed within 12 years - Suit barred by limitation - land dispute - Identification of the property - scope of applicability of the Limitation Act vis- -vis Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure - HELD THAT - The law of limitation relating to the suit for possession has undergone a drastic change. In terms of Articles 142 and 144 of the Limitation Act, 1908, it was obligatory on the part of the plaintiff to aver and plead that he not only has title over the property but also has been in possession of the same for a period of more than 12 years. However, if the plaintiff has filed the suit claiming title over the suit property in terms of Articles 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, burden would be on the defendant to prove that he has acquired title by adverse possession. We have noticed that the defendant, inter alia, on the plea of identification of the suit land the deeds of sale, under which the plaintiff has claimed his title, claimed possession. The defendant did not accept that the plaintiff was in possession. An issue in this behalf is, therefore, required to be framed and the said question is, therefore, required to be gone into. Limitation would not commence unless there has been a clear and unequivocal threat to the right claimed by the plaintiff. In a situation of this nature, in our opinion, the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) was not maintainable. The contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent may have to be gone into at a proper stage. Lest it may prejudice the contention of one party or the other at the trial, we resist from making any observations at this stage. Thus, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. The same is, therefore, set aside. The appeal is allowed with costs.

Issues Involved:
1. Declaration of plaintiff's title to the suit property.
2. Consequential injunction to restrain defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession.
3. Alternative relief for recovery of vacant possession.
4. Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure on grounds of limitation.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Declaration of Plaintiff's Title to the Suit Property:
The appellant filed a suit in 2001 seeking a declaration of title to the suit property, a consequential injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with their possession, and, alternatively, recovery of vacant possession if found out of possession. The cause of action allegedly arose in 1994 when the defendants trespassed on the property. The plaintiff claimed to have discovered a mistake in the property boundaries in 1998.

2. Consequential Injunction to Restrain Defendants from Interfering with the Plaintiff's Possession:
The plaintiff sought an injunction to prevent the defendants and their agents from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. This was based on the claim that the plaintiff was in possession of the property and that the defendants' actions were unlawful.

3. Alternative Relief for Recovery of Vacant Possession:
The plaintiff also sought recovery of vacant possession if the court found that they were out of possession of the property. This alternative relief was included to cover the possibility that the plaintiff might not be in possession at the time of the suit.

4. Rejection of Plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure on Grounds of Limitation:
The respondents filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking rejection of the plaint on the grounds that the suit was barred by limitation. They argued that the plaintiff had knowledge of the boundary mistake as early as 1994, making the suit filed in 2001 time-barred under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes a three-year limitation period for such claims.

Detailed Judgment Analysis:

Trial Court Decision:
The Principal Subordinate Judge, Chengalpet, rejected the respondents' application for rejection of the plaint. The court opined that the issue of whether the plaintiff had knowledge of the boundary mistake earlier was a mixed question of fact and law that needed to be addressed during the trial. The court emphasized that only the averments in the plaint should be considered at this stage, as per the precedent set in Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Association.

High Court Decision:
The respondents appealed, and the High Court reversed the trial court's decision. The High Court held that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, which provides a three-year limitation period for suits seeking a declaration of title. The High Court concluded that the limitation period had expired in 1997, making the suit filed in 2001 time-barred.

Supreme Court Decision:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, emphasizing that an application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) should only consider the averments in the plaint. The court noted that the question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law that requires proper pleadings, framing of issues, and taking of evidence. The Supreme Court cited previous decisions, including Popat and Kotecha Property and Balasaria Construction (P) Ltd. v. Hanuman Seva Trust, to support its conclusion that the plaint could not be rejected solely on the ground of limitation without a thorough examination of the facts.

The Supreme Court further clarified that for suits seeking recovery of possession based on title, the limitation period under Article 65 of the Limitation Act (12 years) would apply, rather than Article 58. The court emphasized that the burden of proving adverse possession lies with the defendant, and the plaintiff's claim should not be dismissed at the preliminary stage without considering the evidence.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and remanded the case for trial. The court awarded costs to the appellant, assessed at Rs. 25,000. The decision underscores the importance of considering the averments in the plaint and the necessity of a detailed examination of facts and evidence before rejecting a suit on the grounds of limitation.

← Previous Next →