Summary
The High Court rejected a plaint concerning possession under an agreement, treating the suit as time-barred and a declaration under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act as unavailable. The Supreme Court held that the plaint had to be read as a whole, including allegations of recent threatened dispossession and the permanent-injunction prayer. The plaint could not be rejected partially. It restored the trial court’s refusal to reject the plaint and left entitlement to relief for trial.
Issues
- Whether limitation was apparent from the plaint read as a whole.
- Whether objections to the declaration prayer justified rejecting the entire plaint despite the interconnected injunction claim.
- Whether the plaintiffs’ substantive entitlement had been finally determined.
Provisions considered
- Order VII Rule 11(d), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Rejection for limitation required a bar apparent from the entire plaint. Selective reading and partial rejection could not support the High Court’s order. (¶ 7-8)
Held
- A plaint may be rejected for limitation only when the bar is apparent on its face. The court must consider all relevant averments together rather than isolate a few passages and disregard the remainder. (¶ 7-7.1)
- The High Court relied on an earlier alleged cause of action without considering pleaded advertisements and attempts at dispossession in 2010. Read as a whole, the plaint did not establish the asserted limitation bar at this stage. (¶ 7.2-7.3)
- The plaintiffs also sought permanent protection of their asserted possession under the agreement. For that claim the pleaded interference supplied the relevant cause of action; objections to the declaration prayer could not justify partial rejection of the plaint, and the reliefs were interconnected. (¶ 7.4)
- Whether the plaintiffs ultimately qualified for relief invoking Section 53A remained for trial. Restoring the plaint did not determine their title, possession or entitlement to a decree. (¶¶ 7.4, 9)
- The defendants’ rejection application was dismissed and the trial court’s order restored. The suit was to proceed on its merits and evidence, with the Supreme Court’s observations confined to the rejection application. (¶ 8-9)
Result
Appeal allowed without costs. The High Court order rejecting the plaint was set aside, the defendants’ application under Order VII Rule 11 was dismissed and the trial court’s order restored. The suit was to proceed on its own merits.