C.NATRAJAN versus ASHIM BAI AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 11 S.C.R. 33 · Decided: 11-10-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

'1' 
C.NATRAJAN 
A 
v. 
ASHIM BAI AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 11, 2007 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.) 
)" 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
Or. 7, r.11 ( d)-Application for rejection of plaint-Maintainability c 
of-Suit for declaration of title and, in the alternative, for recovery 
of possession-Filed in 200 I-Cause of action said to have arisen in 
1994-Application for rejection of plaint on ground of limitation-
Rejected by trial court, but allowed by High Court holding that as per 
Article 58 of Schedule to Limitation Act, suit was barred by D 
limitation-HELD: Question as to whether suit is barred by limitation 
or not would depend on facts of each case and for this purpose 
J 
averments in plaint only are relevant-If suit has been filed for 
possession as a consequence of declaration of plaintiff's title, Article 
58 of Limitation Act will have.no application-On facts, defendant, 
on plea of identification of suit land vis-a-vis the sale deed under which E 
plaintiff had claimed his title, claimed possession and did not accept 
that plaintiff was in possession-An issue in this behalf is required to 
be framed and decided-Limitation would not commence unless there 
has been a clear and unequivocal threat to right claimed by plaintiff-
F 
In such a situation, application under Or. 7, r.11 (d) was not 
maintainable-Limitation Act, 1963-Schedule-Article 58. 
The appellant filed a suit in the year 2001 for declaration of 
title to the suit property, for permanent injunction and, in the 
alternative, for recovery of possession of the suit property. The G 
cause of action for the suit was said to have arisen in 1994. The 
....( 
defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11( d) of the Code 
of Civil Procedure, 1908 for rejection of the plaint on the ground that 
the suit was barred by limitation. The trial court rejected the 
33 
H 
34 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 11 S.C.R. 
A application, but the High Court in revision held the suit as barred 
by limitation and rejected the plaint observing that as per Article 
58 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, the period of 
limitation had expired in 1997. Aggrieved, the plaintiff filed the 
B 
instant appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. An application under Order 7, Rule ll(d) of the 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for rejection of plaint can be filed if 
the allegations made in the plaint, even if given face value and taken 
C to be correct in their entirety, appear to be barred by any law. The 
question as to whether a suit is barred by limitation or not would, 
therefore, depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 
For the said purpose, only the averments made in the plaint are 
relevant. At this stage, the court would not be entitled to consider 
D the case of the defence. [Para 7] [40-A-B] 
Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff 
Association, [2005] 7 SCC 510, relied on. 
1.2. If the plaintiff is to be granted a relief of recovery of 
E possession, the suit could be filed within a period of 12 years. It is 
one thing to say that whether such a relief can be granted or not 
after the ev'idences are led by the parties but it is another thing to 
say that the plaint is to be rejected on the ground that the same is 
barred by any law. If the suit has b~en filed for possession, as a 
F 
consequence of declaration of the plaintifrs title, Article 58 of the 
Limitation Act, 1963 will have no application. [Para 13] [43-D-E] 
1.3. The law oflimitation relating to the suit for possession has 
undergone a drastic change. In terms of Articles 142and144 of the 
Limitation Act, 1908, it was obligatory on the part of the plaintiff to 
G 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 
H 
C.NATRAJANv. ASHIMBAI 
35 
-( 
acquired title by adverse possession. [Para 15) [43-G-H; 44-A] 
A 
Md. Mohammad Ali (dead) by LRs. v. Jagdish Kalila and Ors., 
[2004) 1 sec 271, relied on. 
S.M Karim v. Mst. Bibi Sakina, [1964) 6 SCR 780; Lala Nahata 
& Anr. v. Chandi Prasad Sikaria, [2007) 2 SCC 551, distinguished. B 
P. T Munichikkanna Reddy & Ors. v. Revamma & Ors., [2007) 6 
SCC 29; Binapani Paul v. Pratima Ghosh & Ors., [2007) 6 SCC 100; 
Kamakshi Bu

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.