A plaint may be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC if the averments clearly establish that the suit is barred by limitation, regardless of contentions stating limitation is a mixed question of fact and law.

JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri P. Bhanu Prakash, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri K. Sreenivas, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the entire record.

2. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant/respondent No.1/plaintiff aggrieved by the order and decree dated 11.03.2024 passed in I.A.No.76 of 2022 in O.S.No.121 of 2022 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge at Kalwakurthy (‘trial Court’), wherein a petition filed under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC seeking rejection of plaint has been allowed and the suit has been rejected as barred by law.

Background of facts:

3. The appellant herein filed suit for declaration of title with respect to Schedule A, B and C properties i.e., agricultural land totaling to Ac.16-29 guntas situated in various survey numbers of Kurmmida Village, Kalwakurthy Mandal, Nagarkurnool District. In addition, the appellant sought declaration of sale deed dated 15.06.1989, to be declared as null and void and for recovery of possession from respondent Nos.1 and 2 and a direction to respondent Nos.5 to delete the names of respondent Nos.1 and 2 from the pattedar and possessor column from the years 1995 onwards till date and for costs of the suit. The appellant filed suit claiming to be adopted son of Male Balram Goud, resident of Vemula of Midjil Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. The said Male Balaram Goud and his wife Male Jangamma during their lifetime purchased the suit schedule A, B and C properties jointly with K. Kurmaiah and K. Chinna Balaram under unregistered sale deed to an extent of Ac.25-10 guntas and under registered document No.191 of 1966 dated 25.06.1966. Their names are mutated in the revenue records and pahanies for their respective shares. Further, there was a compromise decree in O.S.No.228 of 2014 dated 02.12.2015 and in terms of said settlement, vide Lok Adalat Case No.422 of 2015, shares were allotted in between Male Jangamma, K. Kurmaiah and Chinna Balaram. As per said order, the appellant's adoptive mother, Male Jangamma, got Ac.8-9 guntas in Survey No.122 and Ac.4-16 guntas in Survey No.125 totaling to Ac.12-25 guntas. Further, the appellant's adoptive father purchased Schedule C property to an extent of Ac.4-4 guntas in Survey No.122 of Kurmmida Village. The appellant was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule A and B properties. The appellant's adoptive mother, Jangamma, died on 15.08.1989 intestate and the adoptive father expired on 14.01.1999 intestate. Ever since the appellant is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property till the year 2004.

4. In the year 2004, respondent Nos.1 and 2 took possession of the suit schedule properties in the guise of wrong entries in pahanies. The appellant verified the pahanies and learned that the names of respondent Nos.1 and 2 are entered in the pahanies with effect from 1995 onwards. In the year 2010, the appellant made an application dated 16.01.2010 for certified copies of revenue records and after securing the same learned that there was a fabricated sale deed dated 15.06.1989 created by respondent Nos.1 and 2. The appellant filed revision under Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 , challenging the entry of names of respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the respondent No.3 vide file No.D1/3550/2007 (case No.D1/21/2007). The said petition was dismissed vide order dated 25.01.2014. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed writ petition W.P.15303 of 2014 and said that writ petition was disposed of on 10.08.2022 with a direction to file appropr