When a plaint specifically pleads the date of knowledge regarding a transaction, the issue of limitation constitutes a mixed question of fact and law which cannot be summarily decided under Order VII Rule 11 CPC by looking at defense evidence; such claims require a full-fledged trial.

JUDGMENT

Heard, Sri P.Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri M.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

2. This appeal, filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’), is directed against the order and decretal order dated 08.02.2019 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar (for short ‘the trial court’) in I.A.No.1189 of 2017 in O.S.No.981 of 2017. By the said order, the trial court allowed the application filed by the defendants under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the CPC and rejected the plaint in its entirety, holding that the suit was barred by limitation and lacked a valid cause of action.

3. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in O.S.No.981 of 2017.

4. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the parties are hereinafter referred to in the capacity they were arrayed before the trial Court.

5. The appellant/plaintiff instituted O.S.No.981 of 2017 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, seeking the following reliefs:

a) A declaration that the Gift Settlement Deed dated 18.04.2006, bearing Document No.5744 of 2006, registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District, in respect of the suit schedule property, i.e., agricultural dry land admeasuring Ac.4.20 guntas in Survey No. 67, situated at Nazdiksingaram Village, Yacharam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as the “suit schedule property”), is null and void; and

b) A consequential relief of recovery of vacant and peaceful possession of the suit schedule property from the defendants.

Plaint Averments (Appellant/Plaintiff's case)

6. The case of the appellant/plaintiff, as set out in the plaint, in substance, is as follows:

i. The plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property from the 2nd defendant, who is his maternal uncle, under a registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.50 of 1971 dated 20.01.1971. It is specifically pleaded that possession of the property was delivered to the plaintiff pursuant to the oral agreement of sale and, thereafter, the plaintiff became the absolute owner and possessor of the property.

ii. It is further pleaded that, owing to his employment as a Government servant in various remote places, the plaintiff was unable to personally supervise the property. Consequently, he entrusted the suit schedule property to the 2nd defendant for the limited purpose of looking after the agricultural operations. Accordingly, the 2nd defendant continued to cultivate the land and was allegedly remitting the agricultural income/proceeds to the plaintiff.

iii. After his retirement from service in the year 2006, the plaintiff sought to regularize the revenue entries and thereby, submitted an application dated 20.12.2016 before the Tahsildar, Yacharam Mandal, for mutation of his name and issuance of pattadar passbook. Upon such application, notice was issued to the 2nd defendant.

iv. In response thereto, the 2nd defendant, by his reply dated 10.03.2017, for the first time set up a hostile claim by denying the very sale in favour of the plaintiff. 2nd defendant asserted that the suit property had fallen to his share in a partition suit in O.S.No.33 of 1990 and further claimed that he had executed a Gift Settlement Deed dated 18.04.2006 in favour of his son, the 1st defendant, in respect of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has speci