JUDGMENT

D. M. DHARMADHIKARI, J. — In these appeals preferred by the plaintiffs the only question involved is whether the trial Court and the High Court were right in holding that the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was liable to rejection The High Court by the impugned order passed in Misc. Second Appeal reversed the order of the first appellate Court and upheld that of the trial Court.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff in this appeal contends that if the plaint allegations containing all facts are read in proper perspective, ‘cause of action’ has clearly been pleaded and the High Court grossly erred in reject¬ing the plaint on the ground that it does not disclose any cause of action.

3. With the assistance and on the comments and counter-comments of the parties, we have carefully gone through the contents of the plaint. We find that the plaint has been very cleverly drafted with a view to get over the bar of limitation and payment of ad valorem Court-fee. According to us, the plaint was rightly held to be liable to rejection if not on the alleged ground of non-disclosure of any cause of action but on the ground covered by Clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII of Code of Civil Procedure namely that ‘the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be clearly barred by law’.

4. As per the plaint allegations of the plaintiffs, their late father had incurred some debts and had, therefore, borrowed a sum of Rs. 2000/- from the predecessor-in-title of the defend¬ants. By way of security for the loan advanced, a registered sale deed was executed on 5.5.1953 with a contemporaneous oral agree¬ment that on return of the borrowed sum with interest payable thereon @ 6% per annum, the registered reconveyance deed shall be executed in favour of the borrower. In the plaint it is further averred that even after execution of the registered sale deed, which according to plaintiff was, in fact merely a loan transac¬tion, the father of the plaintiffs and thereafter the plaintiffs continued to be in possession of the suit lands and paid the land revenue. The other averments in the plaint are that as the lands in suit were already under mortgage with Bangalore Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., they could not have been sold.

5. Further averment in the plaint is that the defendants had executed a receipt on 30.7.1963 in favour of the first plain¬tiff acknowledging return of certain amounts under the loan with an oral promise to execute registered reconveyance deed in favour of the plaintiffs. In paragraph 9 of the plaint a statement was made to the effect that in respect of the registered sale deed of 1953, on payment of entire outstanding amount of loan, the re¬ceipt was obtained on 25.3.1987 from the defendants and the original registered sale deed dated 5.5.1953 was returned to the first plaintiff with an oral promise by the defendants to execute a registered document in favour of plaintiff/borrower.

6. On reading all the averments in paragraph 9 of the plaint, it is apparent that the cause of action for obtaining a registered reconveyance deed from the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs first arose on 25.3.1987 when the entire loan amount was alleged to have been repaid and an oral promise was given by the defendants to reconvey the suit lands.

7. In paragraph 11 of the plaint it is stated that the plaintiff had earlier filed Civil Suit No. 557 of 1990 in the Court of Second Munsiff, Bangalore seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit land by the plaintiffs. That suit, it is stated, was pending on the date of filing of the present suit.

8. In paragraph 12 there are averments with regard to the revenue proceeding concerning mutation of names over the lands in question. It is pleaded that the plaintiffs made formal applica¬tion for mutation of their names on the lands and at that time the village accountant, in conspiracy wi