2026 Supreme(AP) 697

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Ravi Nath Tilhari, Balaji Medamalli, JJ.
St. Katwal Abubakar – Appellant
Versus
Abbavaram Subba Reddy & others - Respondents
A.S.No.604 of 2010
Decided On : 08-05-2026

A plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC at the registration stage if the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact requiring trial, especially when the plaintiff has specifically averred a date of actual knowledge.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 7 Rule 11(d) - Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 54 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 3 - Rejection of plaint at the stage of registration - Suit for specific performance of contract - The court held that the plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) if the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact requiring trial; the specific averment in the plaint regarding the date of actual knowledge of the registered sale deeds and gift deed must be taken as correct for the purpose of Order 7 Rule 11, and the deemed notice under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act cannot be imputed at the initial stage without evidence. (Paras 29-38)

(B) Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 54 - Suit for specific performance - Period of limitation of three years starts from the date fixed for performance, or if no date is fixed, from the date when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused. The expression 'date' is suggestive of a specified date in the calendar. (Paras 15-22)

(C) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 3 - Notice of a fact - A person is said to have notice of a fact when he actually knows that fact, or when, but for wilful abstention from an enquiry or search which he ought to have made, or gross negligence, he would have known it. Explanation I provides that a person acquiring immovable property shall be deemed to have notice of a registered instrument as from the date of registration. However, the question of constructive notice is a question of fact or at best a mixed question of fact and law which falls to be determined on evidence, and not at the stage of rejection of plaint. (Paras 25-28)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 05.11.2007. The plaint was presented on 08.03.2010 but was returned with office objections, including that the suit appeared to be barred by limitation as the defendant Nos.3 & 4 had sold part of the suit property on 17.02.2004 and defendant No.1 had gifted part of the property on 19.03.2004 under registered documents. The plaintiff explained that he came to know about these transactions only in January, 2010. The learned V Additional District Judge rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC, holding that as per Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, the plaintiff was deemed to have notice of those registered documents from the date of their execution, and therefore the suit was barred by limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act.

Issues: (i) Whether the plaint could be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC as the suit was barred by law? (ii) Whether the judgment and decree rejecting the plaint is legally sustainable or calls for interference?

Findings of Court:
The court held that the plaint could not be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) at the stage of registration. The question of limitation, especially the date of knowledge and whether the plaintiff is deemed to have notice of the registered documents, is a mixed question of law and fact which requires trial. Since the plaintiff had specifically averred that he came to know of the registered documents only in January, 2010, that averment must be taken as correct for the purpose of Order 7 Rule 11. The deemed notice under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act cannot be imputed to the plaintiff at the initial stage without evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that when there is a specific averment in the plaint with respect to the suit being within limitation from a particular date of knowledge, it is not a case for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC at the stage of registration. The plea of limitation, the date of knowledge, and from what date the period of limitation would begin to run, are matters for determination only on evidence during trial, and not at the stage of registration of the plaint.

Result: The appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 06.04.2010 is set aside. The plaint is revived, and the suit shall be registered by the learned Trial Court and proceeded in accordance with law. No order as to costs.

JUDGMENT :

Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.

Heard Sri Sita Ram Chaparla, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri N.Rupeswar Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 and Sri S.Noor Mohammed, learned counsel representing Sri O.Manoher Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.7 to 10.

I. FACTS:

2. The plaintiff is the appellant and defendants are the respondents. The plaintiff filed O.S.(SR).No.792 of 2010 for specific performance of contract against the defendants/respondents to execute the registered sale deed in terms of the agreement of sale dated 05.11.2007 along with further reliefs.

3. At the stage of registration of plaint/suit, when the plaint was presented on 08.03.2010, the same was returned with the office objections, inter-alia and briefly stated:

i) on the ground of limitation i.e., to show how the suit was within the time, when the defendant Nos.3 & 4 have sold the part of the schedule property on 17.02.2004 and defendant No.1 gifted part of the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.8 on 19.03.2004 under registered documents;

ii) as per the averments in the plaint, the suit schedule property was delivered possession to the plaintiff on 15.02.2004, but the suit document dated 02.11.2001 with the endorsement dated 15.02.2004 was silent about the delivery of possession, so it should be explained; with some other office objections.

4. The plaintiff represented the plaint on 09.03.2010 giving explanation that the plaintiff came to know about the sale of part of the suit property by the defendant Nos.3 & 4 only during the month of January, 2010, which was made behind the back of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had no knowledge about the gift deed made by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3 of which also he came to know in the month of January, 2010.

5. So on the first objection, the plaintiff submitted that the suit was within limitation from the date of knowledge of the sale deed and the gift deed in January, 2010.

6. With respect to the other objection, the plaintiff submitted that the registered documents were sham and nominal documents and were never acted upon.

II. Order of Rejection of Plaint dated 06.04.2020:

7. Learned V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty by its judgment and decree dated 06.04.2010 rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of Code of Civil Procedure (in short ‘CPC’) recording the finding that defendant No.1 had executed a registered gift deed in favour of defendant No.8 on 19.03.2004 with respect to the suit schedule Ac.0.94 cents out of the suit schedule property and the defendant No.3 had also executed registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.8 with respect to Ac.0.44 cents in the suit schedule property. Defendant No.4 had executed a registered sale deed with respect to Ac.0.94 cents in the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.8 on 17.02.2004.

8. Based on the execution of those registered documents out of the plaint schedule property, learned V Additional District Judge held that as per Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act (in short ‘the T.P.Act’), the plaintiff shall be deemed to have notice of those registered documents on the date of execution of those documents and consequently, the suit ought to have been filed on or before 17.02.2007 within three years from 17.02.2004, the dates of the registered documents created by the defendants, as per Article 54 of the Limitation Act. So, the suit was barred by limitation and the plaint was rejected.

III. Submission of learned counsels:

i) For Appellants:

9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the decree rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC is unsustainable. He submitted that as per the plaint averments plaintiff had clearly stated that those sale deeds and gift deed though registered but were between close family members. The plaintiff had no knowledge of those transactions and the plaintiff acquired knowledge at the end of January, 2010. So, th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document