The High Court upheld the Trial Court’s decision, stating that the issues of limitation and cause of action required detailed examination through evidence at trial and could not be summarily dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

Both Civil Revision Applications were rejected, and the rule was discharged.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) – Rejection of Plaint on Grounds of No Cause of Action and Barred by Limitation

• Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 110 – Period of Limitation for Partition of Joint Family Property

Subjects:
Rejection of Plaint – Limitation – Cause of Action – Mutation Entries – Partition Suit – Family Property – Absolute Title – Mixed Questions of Law and Fact

Nature of the Litigation:
Civil Revision Applications filed challenging the order rejecting the application for dismissal of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Relief Sought:
Applicants sought rejection of the plaint on the grounds of lack of cause of action and suit being barred by limitation.

Reason for Filing the Case:
Plaintiffs claimed their right to partition, separate possession, permanent injunction, and mesne profits regarding the disputed family properties, asserting their exclusion from ownership and possession by the defendants through successive mutation entries.

Prior Decisions:
The Trial Court rejected the application filed by the defendants under Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) of CPC, holding that the issues of limitation and cause of action required trial as they involved mixed questions of law and fact.

Issues:

1. Whether the plaint disclosed a real and substantive cause of action.

2. Whether the suit was barred by limitation under Article 110 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

3. Whether mutation entries established exclusive ownership and excluded the plaintiffs' rights.

Submissions/Arguments:

• Applicants: Argued that successive mutation entries, including the transfer of property in 1976, 2003, and 2008, demonstrated exclusion of plaintiffs' rights, making the suit time-barred and without cause of action.

• Respondents: Contended that the cause of action arose only upon the defendants' attempt to deal with the properties post the death of Rameshchandra in 2022 and that the mutation entries did not confer absolute title, requiring trial to establish substantive rights.

Ratio Decidendi:

• Mutation entries alone do not confer substantive ownership rights without supporting legal instruments.

• Cause of action must be determined based on the date of knowledge of exclusion from joint family property rights.

• Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 requires clear and apparent grounds without the necessity of detailed factual inquiry.