Karam Singh vs Amarjit Singh

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL Nos …… OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 3560-3561/2023)

KARAM SINGH …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

AMARJIT SINGH & ORS. …RESPONDENT (S)

JUDGMENT

MANOJ MISRA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These two appeals impugn two orders of the High

Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh1. The first is

dated 27.01.2022 passed in Civil Revision No.725/2020

Signature Not Verified whereas the second is dated 04.07.2022 by which Digitally signed by CHETAN ARORA Date: 2025.10.15 16:44:59 IST Reason: 1 The High Court.

Civil Appeals @ SLP (C) Nos. 3560-3561/2023 Page 1 of 16 application2 seeking recall of the order dated 27.01.2022

has been rejected.

3. The appellant along with Dilbag Singh (i.e., proforma

respondent no. 9) instituted Suit No.424 of 2019 against

Amarjit Singh (i.e., respondent no.1), Shamsher Singh (i.e.,

respondent no.2), Jagdish Singh (i.e., respondent no.3),

Smt. Nachhattar Kaur (i.e., respondent no.4), Kuldeep Kaur

(i.e., respondent no.5), Sukhdeep Kaur (i.e., respondent

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;

2 Misc. Application No.7259/2022

Civil Appeals @ SLP (C) Nos. 3560-3561/2023 Page 2 of 16

(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 herself challenged the gift.

Ultimately, the gift was set aside by decree dated

11.09.1975 and Kartar Kaur was held owner in possession

of the land. Consequent to the decree, on 13.05.1976

mutation was sanctioned and entered in favour of Kartar

Kaur. The mutation entry was contested by predecessor-

Civil Appeals @ SLP (C) Nos. 3560-3561/2023 Page 3 of 16 in-interest of the plaintiffs. During pendency of the

proceedings relating to mutation, Kartar Kaur died on

28.12.1983. The defendants in the suit, namely, the

contesting respondents herein, in the mutation

proceedings, set up a will dated 15.12.1976, alleged to have

been executed by Kartar Kaur, in their favour and claimed

mutation on basis thereof. However, vide order dated

29.04.1984, mutation was ordered in favour of the legal

representatives of Ronak Singh’s sister based on natural

succession and an appeal against the same, filed by the

respondents, was dismissed by the Collector vide order

dated 15.04.1985. Subsequently, the mutation matter was

taken up to higher courts. Finally, the litigation arising out

of mutation ended against the plaintiffs on 20.07.2017.

Thereafter, by claiming that the will set up by the

defendants is null and void, an act of fraud, the plaintiffs

claiming themselves to be natural heirs of Kartar Kaur,

through sisters of Ronak Singh, instituted the suit for the

aforesaid reliefs.

Civil Appeals @ SLP (C) Nos. 3560-3561/2023 Page 4 of 16

5. The defendants (i.e. the contesting respondents) filed

an application under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 19083 for rejection of the plaint on the ground

that the suit is hopelessly barred by time. In the application

it was, inter alia, stated that the will was set up in the year

1983 after the death of Kartar Kaur; the mutation

proceedings based on the will was contested and therefore,

the plaintiffs including their predecessor in interest were

fully aware of the existence of the will; hence, the relief for

declaration qua the will, limitation of which is three years,

was hopelessly barred by limitation. It was also contended

that the plaintiffs’ stand that cause of action had arisen on

20.07.2017 is incorrect and wrong. In addition to above, it

was stated that plaintiffs have concealed a material fact

regarding filing of civil suit no.648/2012, which was filed

by father of plaintiff no.1, wherein the order of mutation

dated 28.05.2012 was challenged without challenging the

will and, therefore, the plaint of the said suit was rejected

3 CPC Civil Appeals @ SLP (C) Nos. 3560-3561/2023 Page 5 of 16 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

Civil Appeals @ SLP (C) Nos. 3560-3561/2023 Page 6 of 16 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 orders, these two

appeals have been filed.

10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and

have also given liberty to the counsel for the parties to file

written submissions.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

11. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that

the High Court committed a grave error in holding that the

suit was barred by time. In holding so, the High Court

observed that the suit was instituted after almost 36 years

since culmination of mutation proceedings, which is

incorrect in as much as mutation proceedings culminated

on 20.07.2017 and the suit was instituted on 31.05.2019

(i.e., within three years thereof). In addition to above, it was

contended that the suit was for possession, based on title.

Since the main relief was for possession, the limitation

period would be 12 years from the date when the possession

Civil Appeals @ SLP (C) Nos. 3560-3561/2023 Page 7 of 16 of defendants became hostile and adverse to the plaintiff.

The High Court, however, failed to consider that aspect.

12. Besides above, notice of the revision before the High

Court was not served on the respondents and therefore, the

first impugned order, which is an ex parte order, ought to

have been recalled. On the strength of above submissions,

the learned counsel for the appellant contended that it is a

fit case where the appeals should be allowed and the

impugned order(s) set aside.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

13. On behalf of the respondents, it was contended that

predecessor in interest of the appellant had earlier

instituted civil suit no. 648/2012 seeking permanent

prohibitory injunction to restrain the answering

respondents from alienating the suit property. The said suit

was dismissed on 17.05.2013 on the ground that there

could be no injunction against true owner. Since the

present suit is based on the same cause of action, the same

is liable to be dismissed as being nothing but abuse of the

Civil Appeals @ SLP (C) Nos. 3560-3561/2023 Page 8 of 16 process of law. Moreover, the suit is barred by limitation as

plaintiffs had knowledge of the registered will since 1983.

14. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for

the respondents placed reliance on the following decisions

of this court:

(i) T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal4.

(ii) Rajendra Bajoria & Ors. v. Hemant

Kumar Jalan5.

(iii) Ramisetty Venkatanna & Anr. v.

Nasyam Jamal Saheb & Ors.6.

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 117 of

4 (1977) 4 SCC 467 5 (2022) 12 SCC 641 6 2023 SCC Online SC 521 7

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;

Civil Appeals @ SLP (C) Nos. 3560-3561/2023 Page 9 of 16 CPC. Here, the defendants seek rejection of plaint under

clause (d) of Rule 11 (i.e., suit barred by law). Clause (d)

makes it clear that while considering rejection of the plaint

thereunder only the averments made in the plaint and

nothing else is to be considered to find out whether the suit

is barred by law. At this stage, the defense is not to be

considered. Thus, whether the suit is barred by any law or

not is to be determined on the basis of averments made in

the plaint.

16. In the instant case, the plaintiff instituted the suit by

claiming title through succession to the estate of late Kartar

Kaur. On the other hand, the defendants had set up a will

alleged to have been executed by Kartar Kaur in their

favour. Neither the plaint nor any document brought on

record indicated that the will was probated or its validity

was tested and upheld in regular civil proceedings inter se

(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 of an exceptional nature form correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.

Civil Appeals @ SLP (C) Nos. 3560-3561/2023 Page 10 of 16 parties. As far as mutation proceedings are concerned, it is

well settled that mutation entries do not confer title. They

serve a fiscal purpose, that is, to realize tax from the person

whose name is recorded in the revenue records8. Besides

above, the plaint averments indicated that the mutation

proceedings culminated in the year 2017 and the suit in

question was instituted within three years thereafter.

17. Apart from above, the suit was not for a mere

declaration of the will being null and void but for possession

as well. The plaintiff claimed title over the suit land by

natural succession and sought possession based on title.

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 (vide Article 65 of the Schedule to

the Limitation Act).

18. In Indira v. Arumugam & Anr.9, this court held that

when the suit is based on title for possession, once the title

8 See: Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh, (1997) 7 SCC 137; Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186 9 (1998) 1 SCC 614

Civil Appeals @ SLP (C) Nos. 3560-3561/2023 Page 11 of 16 is established based on relevant documents and other

evidence, unless the defendant proves adverse possession

for the prescriptive period, the plaintiff cannot be non-

suited. 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 law10.

19. That apart, where several reliefs are sought in suit, if

any one of the reliefs is within the period of limitation, the

10 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

Civil Appeals @ SLP (C) Nos. 3560-3561/2023 Page 12 of 16 plaint cannot be rejected as barred by law by taking

recourse to Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC11.

20. Further, in “N. Thajudeen v. Tamil Nadu Khadi &

Village Industries Board” 12 relying on earlier decision of

this court in “C. Mohammad Yunus v. Syed Unnissa”13 it

was held:

“23. …in a suit for declaration with a further relief, the limitation would be governed by the Article governing the suit for such further relief. In fact, a suit for a declaration of title to immovable property would not be barred so long as the right to such a property continues and subsists. When such right continues to subsist, the relief for declaration would be a continuing right and there would be no limitation for such a suit. The principle is that the suit for a declaration for a right cannot be held to be barred so long as Right to Property subsist”.

24. Even otherwise, though the limitation for filing a suit for declaration of title is three years as per Article 58 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act but for recovery of possession based upon title, the limitation is 12 years from the date the possession of the defendant becomes adverse in terms of Article 65 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act. Therefore, suit for the relief of possession was not actually barred and as such the court of first instance could not have dismissed the entire suit as barred by time”.

21. In our view, therefore, the plaint as it stood could not

have been rejected on the ground that the suit as framed

11 See: Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. v. Mahaveer Lunia, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1208 12 2024 SCC Online SC 3037 13 AIR 1961 SC 808

Civil Appeals @ SLP (C) Nos. 3560-3561/2023 Page 13 of 16 was barred by limitation. The view to the contrary taken by

the High Court is erroneous in law.

22. Insofar as the suit being barred by Order 2 Rule 2 of

CPC is concerned, the first suit instituted by the

predecessor-in-interest of the appellant was not tried. In

fact, the plaint of that suit was rejected under Order 7 Rule

11 of CPC as not being properly framed. In such

circumstances, a fresh suit with appropriate relief cannot

be, prima facie, barred by Rule 2 of Order 2 of CPC.

Therefore, in our view, the trial court was justified in

directing that the issue, whether the suit is barred by Order

2 Rule 2 of CPC, shall be considered and decided during

trial.

23. At this stage, we may observe that the High Court

while deciding the revision has failed to consider the plaint

averments in its entirety and was swayed only by the fact

that will set up was 36 years old. It overlooked that will

operates only on the death of the testator and here, after

the death of the testator, the validity of the will was

throughout questioned in mutation proceedings which

Civil Appeals @ SLP (C) Nos. 3560-3561/2023 Page 14 of 16 continued and, ultimately, settled in the year 2017. In

between, whether the defendants perfected their title by

adverse possession would be a mixed question of law and

fact and can appropriately be addressed only after evidence

is led. The same cannot be made basis to reject the plaint

at the threshold. In our view, therefore, the order passed

by the High Court cannot be sustained and the same is

liable to be set aside. The appeals are, therefore, allowed.

The impugned judgment and order(s) of the High Court are

set aside. The order of the trial court rejecting the prayer

to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is restored.

The trial court shall proceed with the suit and bring the

proceedings to its logical conclusion in accordance with

law. It is made clear that any observation made by us shall

not be taken as an opinion on the merit of the issues which

may arise for consideration in the course of the suit

proceedings. We clarify that we have addressed those

issues only with a view to find out whether it was a fit case

for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.

Civil Appeals @ SLP (C) Nos. 3560-3561/2023 Page 15 of 16

24. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

….............................................J. (J.B. PARDIWALA)

................................................J. (Manoj Misra)

New Delhi;

October 15, 2025.

Civil Appeals @ SLP (C) Nos. 3560-3561/2023 Page 16 of 16