A plaint cannot be summarily rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) based on defense arguments or complex factual disputes. Where a suit for possession based on title involves mixed questions of law and fact, those issues must be adjudicated during trial rather than at the threshold stage.

J U D G M E N T

MANOJ MISRA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These two appeals impugn two orders of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, (The High Court.). The first is dated 27.01.2022 passed in Civil Revision No.725/2020 whereas the second is dated 04.07.2022 by which application, (Misc. Application No.7259/2022) seeking recall of the order dated 27.01.2022 has been rejected.

3. The appellant along with Dilbag Singh (i.e., proforma respondent no. 9) instituted Suit No.424 of 2019 against Amarjit Singh (i.e., respondent no.1), Shamsher Singh (i.e., respondent no.2), Jagdish Singh (i.e., respondent no.3), Smt. Nachhattar Kaur (i.e., respondent no.4), Kuldeep Kaur (i.e., respondent no.5), Sukhdeep Kaur (i.e., respondent no.8), Sandeep Singh (i.e., respondent no.6) and Major Singh (i.e., respondent no.7) for:

(i) declaring: (a) plaintiff(s) owners of suit land to the extent of their shares as specified in the plaint; and (b) the certificate, registered at 277 on 12.01.1977, and mutation no.1377 as illegal, null and void;

(ii) possession of suit land to the extent of plaintiffs’ share;

(iii) damages/ compensation/ mesne profits for use and occupation of suit land for the period starting from May 2016 to May 2019; and

(iv) permanent prohibitory injunction.

4. The plaint case in a nutshell was that the original owner of the suit land was Ronak Singh alias Ronaki who died intestate on 05.10.1924, leaving behind his widow Kartar Kaur. A dispute arose regarding succession to the estate of Ronak Singh between Kartar Kaur (i.e. Ronak Singh’s widow) and Chinki and Nikki (i.e. sisters of Ronak Singh), predecessor-in interest of the plaintiffs. In between, Kartar Kaur allegedly gifted the suit land to one Harchand. Nikki and Chinki challenged the gift. On 22.03.1935, the civil court held the gift to be invalid as Kartar Kaur had a limited right. Later, Kartar Kaur herself challenged the gift. Ultimately, the gift was set aside by decree dated 11.09.1975 and Kartar Kaur was held owner in possession of the land. Consequent to the decree, on 13.05.1976 mutation was sanctioned and entered in favour of Kartar Kaur. The mutation entry was contested by predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs. During pendency of the proceedings relating to mutation, Kartar Kaur died on 28.12.1983. The defendants in the suit, namely, the contesting respondents herein, in the mutation proceedings, set up a will dated 15.12.1976, alleged to have been executed by Kartar Kaur, in their favour and claimed mutation on basis thereof. However, vide order dated 29.04.1984, mutation was ordered in favour of the legal representatives of Ronak Singh’s sister based on natural succession and an appeal against the same, filed by the respondents, was dismissed by the Collector vide order dated 15.04.1985. Subsequently, the mutation matter was taken up to higher courts. Finally, the litigation arising out of mutation ended against the plaintiffs on 20.07.2017. Thereafter, by claiming that the will set up by the defendants is null and void, an act of fraud, the plaintiffs claiming themselves to be natural heirs of Kartar Kaur, through sisters of Ronak Singh, instituted the suit for the aforesaid reliefs.

5. The defendants (i.e. the contesting respondents) filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (CPC) for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is hopelessly barred by time. In the application it was, inter alia, stated that the will was set up in the year 1983 after the death of Kartar Kaur; the mutation proceedings based on the will was contested and therefore, the plaintiffs including their predecessor in interest were fully aware of the existence of the will; hence, the relief for declaration qua the will, limitation of which is three years, was hopelessly barred by limitation. It was also contended that the plaintiffs’ stand that cause of action had arisen on 20.07.2017 is incorrect and wrong. In addition to abov