Karam Singh VS Amarjit Singh
(A) Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , O.7 R.11(d)— Limitation Act (36 of 1963) , Art.58, Art.65— Rejection of plaint – Ground of limitation – Suit for declaration of ownership, possession and permanent injunction – While plaintiff claimed title through succession , defendants had set up a will executed by predecessor in interest of plaintiff – Neither plaint nor any document showed that Will was probated or its validity was adjudicated in regular civil proceedings – Mutation entries in favour of defendants on basis of said Will did not confer title and served only fiscal purposes – Mutation proceedings had culminated in 2017 and suit was instituted within three years thereafter- Further, relief of possession was also claimed in the suit – Where a suit is for possession of immovable property or any interest therein, based on title, the limitation period is 12 years when the possession of the defendants becomes adverse to the plaintiff – To defeat the suit on the ground of adverse possession, burden would be on the defendant to prove adverse possession – Plaintiff had pleaded that will was contested in mutation proceedings till 2017 – Considering that mutation proceedings are summary in nature, institution of regular suit questioning the same was not ex facie barred by law – Rejection of plaint was erroneous
Civil Revision No.725 of 2020, D/- 27.1.2022 (P and H)-ReversedMisc. Application No.7259 of 2022, D/- 4.7.2022 (P and H)-Reversed(Paras161823)
(B) Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , O.7 R.11(d)— Rejection of plaint – Ground of limitation – 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 recourse to O. 7, R. 11(d).
(C) Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , O.7 R.11(d), O.2 R.2— Rejection of plaint – Suit to include whole claim – First suit instituted by predecessor-in-interest of appellant was not tried and plaint of that suit was rejected under O. 7, R.11 as not being properly framed – A fresh suit with appropriate relief would not be prima facie, barred by O.2, R. 2.
