Back
B. S. BHANUMATHI
A. Prudhvi Raj – Appellant
Versus
S. Rajyalakshmi – Respondent
ORDER :
(B.S. Bhanumathi, J.)
This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners/defendants challenging the order dated 09.05.2022, dismissing the petition in I.A.No.197 of 2020 in O.S. No.88 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Railway Kodur, filed under Order VII Rule 11(a)(d) and Section 151 CPC to reject the plaint.
2. The petitioners herein are defendants 1 & 2 who filed I.A.No.197 of 2020. The respondents No.1 to 3 herein are the plaintiffs who filed the suit for declaration that the registered sale deed bearing No.906 of 2010, dated 21.08.2010, of the Sub-Registrar Office, Chitvel, as null and void and to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 3, their men, agents, assignees, followers etc., in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs 1 to 3 over the plaint A, B and C schedule properties. The suit was filed against five (5) defendants. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampeta Division, YSR Kadapa District is the 4th defendant. The Tahsildar, Obulavaripalli Mandal, YSR Kadapa District is the 5th defendant. The plaintiffs sought costs against all the
The court ruled that the plaintiffs had knowledge of the sale deed in 2014, making their 2019 suit barred by limitation.
A plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 if it is barred by limitation or fails to disclose a cause of action, emphasizing the necessity for clear and truthful averments.
A suit filed to declare a sale deed null and void is barred by limitation if not filed within three years from the date of registration, and must disclose a valid cause of action.
The court clarified that knowledge of encroachment does not imply knowledge of a sale deed, impacting the limitation period for filing a suit.
The court held that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, necessitating a full trial for resolution.
A perusal of the observations made indicates that the Court while laying down the above proposition has used the word ‘ordinarily’ and has not laid down that even in a case where the issue of limitat....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
