Back
2026 Supreme(Telangana) 360
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K.Lakshman, B.R.Madhusudhan Rao, JJ.
Mr. Gaddam Babaiah and others - Appellants
Versus
Duvva Srinu and others - Respondents
Appeal Suit No.137 OF 2026
Decided On : 08-06-2026
Advocate Appeared:
Petitioner Counsel: M. Radhakrishna rep. Rajesh Maddy
Respondent Counsel: K. Pradeep Reddy
A plaint cannot be partially rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; it must be rejected as a whole. Issues regarding cause of action and limitation that are mixed questions of law and fact must be adjudicated through a trial, not summarily rejected at the threshold.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - Rejection of Plaint - Scope and Application - It is settled law that a plaint cannot be rejected in part, either against one defendant or in respect of a particular suit schedule property; the power under Order VII Rule 11 must be exercised to reject the plaint as a whole (Paras 13, 15, 16 and 19) - The purpose of this provision is to ensure that meaningless litigation, bound to prove abortive, does not waste judicial time, but the power is drastic and conditions must be strictly adhered to (Paras 23-25) - To determine if a cause of action is disclosed, the court must look at the plaint as a whole and take the averments at face value without considering the defendant's rebuttal or written statement (Paras 27-31)
(B) Limitation Act, 1963 - Articles 58 and 113 - Cause of Action - Where the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, and the date of knowledge or continuation of possession is specifically pleaded in the plaint, the issue cannot be decided summarily at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and must be adjudicated through a full-fledged trial (Paras 30, 41 and 72)
(C) Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 201 and 202 - Termination of Agency - An agency is generally terminated upon the death of the principal unless the agency is coupled with an interest in the subject matter of the agency (Paras 62-66) - Whether an agent had an interest in the property or whether the agency survived the death of the principal are triable issues that cannot be decided in an application for rejection of plaint (Para 71)
(D) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 3 - Constructive Notice - While a registered document serves as constructive notice to the general public, if the plaintiffs specifically plead exclusive possession and a subsequent interference with such possession, the issue of limitation becomes a triable matter (Paras 91-92)
Facts of the case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction regarding several plot properties. One of the defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC seeking rejection of the plaint specifically against that defendant and in respect of one specific property item, contending that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action and was barred by limitation. The trial court allowed the application and rejected the entire plaint.
Findings of Court:
The trial court erred in rejecting the plaint partially, which is contrary to law. Furthermore, the contentions regarding the validity of general powers of attorney following the death of principals and the actual date of interference with possession are mixed questions of fact and law. Such issues constitute triable matters that must be decided upon the conclusion of a trial and not summarizes at the threshold stage.
Issues: Whether a plaint can be rejected in part under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC and whether the suit is barred by limitation when the cause of action is specifically pleaded as arising from an interference with possession.
Ratio Decidendi: A plaint cannot be partially rejected; it must be rejected as a whole. When a plaint specifically pleads a cause of action and limitation that involves mixed questions of law and fact, the court must accept the averments as true for the purpose of Order VII Rule 11 and proceed to trial rather than summarily rejecting the claim.
Result: Appeal allowed. The impugned order rejecting the plaint is set aside.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. M. Radhakrishna, learned counsel representing Sri Rajesh Maddy, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri K. Pradeep Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
2. According to the petitioners, respondent Nos.2 to 45 are not necessary parties. The said fact is also mentioned in the cause title of the appeal itself.
3.The present Appeal is filed under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC assailing the order dated 11.12.2025 passed in I.A.No.9 of 2018 in O.S.No.1085 of 2017 by the learned XI Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.
(for sake of convenience, the appellants herein are referred to as ‘plaintiffs’ and the 1st respondent as ‘Defendant No.39/D.39’)
4.The plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.1085 of 2017 against the 1st respondent and others for declaration of title and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs’ possession over the suit schedule item Nos.1 to 33 properties (for short, ‘the suit schedule property’). During pendency of the said suit, 1st respondent / Defendant No.39 had filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.9 of 2018 under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC in the said suit, to reject the plaint against D.39 and in respect of Item No.13 of suit schedule property on the ground that the plaint does not disclose cause action and it is barred by limitation.
5. The plaintiffs filed counter in the said interlocutory application contending that they pleaded cause of action specifically and the suit is not barred by limitation. They have stated so in the plaint itself. However, both the cause of. action and limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and the trial Court has to consider the same on conclusion of full – fledged trial. The same cannot be considered in a petition filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.
6. Vide impugned order, learned trial Court allowed the said interlocutory application and rejected the plaint holding that the plaint does not disclose cause of action and it is barred by limitation.
7. Challenging the said order, the plaintiffs filed the present appeal.
8. We have heard Sri M.Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs and Sri K. Pradeep Reddy, learned counsel for 1st respondent/defendant No.39 extensively.
9. In support of their case, learned counsel for the appellants /plaintiffs have placed reliance on the principle laid down in the following judgments:-
10. Hari Shanker Jain vs. Sonia Gandhi (2001) 8 SCC 233 , Azhar Hussain vs. Rajiv Gandhi 1986 Supp.SCC 315 , Sejal Glass Limited vs. Navilan Merchants Private Limited (2018) 11 SCC 780 , N.Shankara Reddy vs. Amara Ramakoteswara Rao 2018 (1) ALD 220 (DB) , C.Mohammad Yunus vs. Syed Unnissa AIR 1961 SC 808 , Anathula Sudhakar vs. P.Buchi Reddy (dead) by L.Rs. AIR 2008 SC 2033 , Central Bank of India vs. Prabha Jain (2025) 4 SCC 38 , Kum. Geetha vs. Nanjundaswamy AIR Online 2023 SC 862 , Narayani Amma vs. Bhaskaran Pillai AIR 1969 Kerala 214 , Southern Roadways Ltd., Madurai, Byits Secretary. Vs. S.M.Krishnan (1989) 4 SCC 603, Daliben Vaijibhai vs. Prajapati Kodarbhai Kachrabhai (2024) SCC OnLine SC 4105, Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (GAJRA) AIR 2020 SC 3310. T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC 467 , Shakti Bhog Food Industries v. Central Bank of India (2020) 17 SCC 260 , P.Kumara Kurubaram vs. P.Narayanan (2025) SCC Online SC 975, Liverpool & London S.P. & I Asson. Ltd vs M.V. Sea Success (2004) 9 SCC 512, Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. v. Hede & Co. (2007) 5 SCC 614 , ITC Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (1998) 2 SCC 70 , Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal (2017) 13 SCC 174, Maqsud Ahmad vs. Mathra Datt and Company AIR 1936 Lahore 1021.
11. In support of his case, learned counsel for the 1st respondent –Defendant No.39 placed reliance on the principle laid down by Apex Court in Patil Automation Private Limited vs. Rakheja Engineers Private Limited , (2022) 10 SCC 1, and Ramisetty Venkatanna vs. Nasyam Jamal Saheb , (2024)
