Order 7 Rule 11(d) and Limitation in Property Suits: Mutation does not confer title; possession-based claims under Article 65 cannot be rejected at the threshold

Introduction

This commentary examines the Supreme Court of India’s decision in Karam Singh v. Amarjit Singh & Ors., 2025 INSC 1238 (Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 3560–3561/2023), decided on 15 October 2025 by a bench comprising J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ. The Court set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s orders which had allowed rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) on limitation grounds, and restored the trial court’s order refusing such rejection.

The case arises out of a long-running succession and title dispute over agricultural land originally owned by one Ronak Singh alias Ronaki, who died intestate in 1924. The plaintiffs (appellant Karam Singh and a proforma co-plaintiff) claim title by natural succession through Ronak Singh’s sisters; the defendants (respondents) set up a will dated 15.12.1976 allegedly executed by Ronak’s widow, Kartar Kaur. After decades of mutation litigation culminating only in 2017, the plaintiffs instituted a 2019 suit seeking declaration, possession, mesne profits, and injunction. The defendants succeeded before the High Court in their application to reject the plaint as barred by limitation; the Supreme Court has now reversed that outcome.

Parties and procedural posture

• Appellant: Karam Singh (plaintiff in Suit No. 424 of 2019)
• Respondents: Amarjit Singh and others (defendants in the suit), with one proforma respondent
• Impugned orders: High Court order dated 27.01.2022 allowing revision and rejecting plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC, and order dated 04.07.2022 refusing recall (the revision having been decided ex parte)
• Reliefs in the suit:
  • Declaration of ownership to the extent of plaintiffs’ shares; declaration that a certificate (registered at No. 277 on 12.01.1977) and Mutation No. 1377 are illegal and void
  • Possession to the extent of plaintiffs’ shares
  • Damages/mesne profits for use and occupation (May 2016 to May 2019)
  • Permanent prohibitory injunction

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court’s orders, and restored the trial court’s order refusing to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The Court reaffirmed foundational principles governing threshold rejection:

• Under Order 7 Rule 11(d), only the plaint averments may be considered to assess whether the suit is barred by law; the defence cannot be looked at.
• Mutation proceedings are summary and mutation entries do not confer title; they primarily serve a fiscal function (for revenue collection). Therefore, the outcome of mutation proceedings does not foreclose a regular civil suit on title.
• Where the suit is for possession based on title (in addition to declaration), the limitation for the possession relief is governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963—12 years from when the defendant’s possession becomes adverse. Adverse possession is a defence to be proved by the defendant; it cannot be the basis for threshold rejection of the plaint.
• If several reliefs are sought, and any one of them is within limitation, the plaint cannot be rejected as barred by law under Order 7 Rule 11(d).
• An earlier suit whose plaint was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 (i.e., not tried) does not, prima facie, trigger a bar under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC; that issue, if raised, is best decided at trial.

On the facts, the Court noted that the mutation litigation culminated only on 20.07.2017, and the 2019 suit was instituted within three years thereafter. Given the prayers for possession and the nature of mutation proceedings, the suit was not ex facie barred by limitation. Any question of adverse possession or Order 2 Rule 2 would be a mixed question fit for trial, not a ground for rejecting the plaint at inception.

Analysis

Factual background and timeline

• 05.10.1924: Ronak Singh alias Ronaki dies intestate, survived by widow Kartar Kaur. Competing succession claims arise—Kartar Kaur versus Ronak’s sisters (Chinki and Nikki), the plaintiffs’ predecessors.
• Prior to resolution, Kartar Kaur gifts the suit land to Harchand; that gift is challenged by the sisters.
• 22.03.1935: Civil court holds the gift invalid due to Kartar Kaur’s limited estate.
• 11.09.1975: Upon Kartar Kaur’s own challenge, a decree sets aside the gift and declares Kartar Kaur owner in possession.
• 13.05.1976: Mutation sanctioned in Kartar Kaur’s favour; contested by the plaintiffs’ side.
• 28.12.1983: Kartar Kaur dies. Defendants set up a will dated 15.12.1976 in their favour in mutation proceedings.
• 29.04.1984: Mutation ordered in favour of heirs through Ronak Singh’s sisters (natural succession). Collector dismisses appeal on 15.04.1985.
• Subsequent litigation over mutation goes up to higher forums and ultimately ends against the plaintiffs on 20.07.2017.
• 31.05.2019: Suit No. 424/2019 instituted seeking declaration, possession, mesne profits, and injunction.
• 07.01.2020: Trial court rejects defendants’ Order 7 Rule 11 application, holding limitation is mixed fact-law and not ex facie apparent; Order 2 Rule 2 to be tried as an issue.
• 27.01.2022: High Court allows revision and rejects plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d), apparently treating the suit as delayed by “36 years.”
• 04.07.2022: High Court dismisses recall application (the revision was ex parte).
• 15.10.2025: Supreme Court reverses the High Court and restores the trial court’s order.

Precedents cited and their influence

• Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh (1997) 7 SCC 137; Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner (2007) 6 SCC 186:

  These authorities reiterate that mutation entries are neither documents of title nor do they confer title; they serve fiscal purposes. The Court relies on this to clarify that outcomes of mutation proceedings cannot bar a regular civil suit on title, nor can they conclusively determine title or trigger limitation for a title-based possession suit.

• Indira v. Arumugam (1998) 1 SCC 614:

  When a plaintiff sues for possession based on title and establishes title, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove adverse possession for the prescriptive period. This principle underpins the Court’s conclusion that a plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold on the premise of adverse possession because it is a defence requiring evidence. Therefore, limitation questions intertwined with adverse possession are mixed questions for trial.

• Jitendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 802; Faqruddin v. Tajuddin (2008) 8 SCC 12; Rajinder Singh v. State Of Jammu & Kashmir (2008) 9 SCC 368:

  These decisions emphasize the summary nature of mutation proceedings, reinforcing that parties are entitled to institute regular civil suits to establish title or seek possession notwithstanding mutation outcomes. Here, since mutation litigation ended in 2017, a suit filed in 2019 could not be treated as ex facie time-barred, particularly where possession relief is sought.

• N. Thajudeen v. Tamil Nadu Khadi & Village Industries Board, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3037, relying on C. Mohammad Yunus v. Syed Unnissa, AIR 1961 SC 808:

  The Court quotes this line of authority to state two key propositions: (i) in a suit for declaration with further relief, limitation is governed by the Article applicable to the further relief; (ii) suits for declaration of title to immovable property implicate continuing rights while the right to property subsists, and for recovery of possession based on title, Article 65 (12 years from adverse possession) applies. This directly supports the conclusion that the possession relief was not time-barred and therefore the entire plaint could not be rejected.

• VINOD INFRA DEVELOPERS LTD. v. MAHAVEER LUNIA, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1208:

  The Court restates that where several reliefs are claimed, if any one is within limitation, the plaint cannot be rejected as barred by law under Order 7 Rule 11(d). This principle defeats the High Court’s approach of treating the suit as wholly time-barred.

• T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC 467; Rajendra Bajoria v. Hemant Kumar Jalan (2022) 12 SCC 641; Ramisetty Venkatanna v. Nasyam Jamal Saheb, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 521:

  These are frequently cited to justify early rejection of suits that are frivolous or barred by law on the face of the plaint. The Supreme Court’s application here is to distinguish those situations: because limitation was neither apparent from the plaint averments nor determinable without evidence (given the possession-based claim and adverse possession defence), Arivandandam and subsequent authorities did not warrant rejection at inception.

Legal reasoning: why Order 7 Rule 11(d) did not apply

• Plain reading of the plaint only:

  Order 7 Rule 11(d) permits rejection when “the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.” The Court reiterates that only plaint averments are relevant; the defence (e.g., knowledge of a will in 1983) cannot be imported to defeat the plaint at this stage.

• Nature of reliefs and limitation Articles:

  The suit is not a bare declaration; it seeks possession based on title. For possession suits founded on title, Article 65 grants 12 years from when the defendant’s possession becomes adverse. Therefore, even if an Article 58, 3‑year limitation might cover certain declaratory dimensions, the possession relief remains governed by Article 65.

• Adverse possession is a defendant’s plea requiring proof:

  As per Indira v. Arumugam, once the plaintiff establishes title, it is for the defendant to prove adverse possession. This cannot be determined on demurrer. It follows that rejecting the plaint for being allegedly time-barred by adverse possession is legally impermissible at the threshold.

• Mutation proceedings are not determinative of title:

  The Court underscores that mutation entries do not confer title and are summary in nature. Plaint averments showed mutation litigation ended only in 2017, and the suit was instituted in 2019. Instituting a regular civil suit after conclusion of mutation proceedings is not ex facie barred, especially when the plaintiff’s title and the will’s validity were never conclusively adjudicated inter se the parties in a civil trial.

• Multiple reliefs—any one in time saves the plaint:

  Relying on Vinod Infra Developers, the Court holds that even if a declaratory relief were arguably time-barred, the presence of a timely possession claim prevents rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d).

• Order 2 Rule 2:

  The earlier 2012 suit by the appellant’s predecessor ended in rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 (i.e., it was not tried on merits). The Supreme Court indicates that such a disposal does not, prima facie, attract the bar under Order 2 Rule 2. In any case, whether the requirements of Order 2 Rule 2 are satisfied is an issue for trial, not a ground to reject at inception in the present case.

• Error of the High Court:

  The High Court’s emphasis that the suit came “36 years” too late was flawed factually and legally. Factually, mutation litigation concluded only in 2017; legally, the will’s validity had not been tested inter se the parties in a civil suit, and possession-based limitation under Article 65 requires a distinct analysis not amenable to threshold rejection.

Impact and prospective significance

• Recalibrating threshold scrutiny under Order 7 Rule 11(d):

  This judgment reinforces that limitation-based rejection at the threshold is a narrow exception, especially in property suits where possession claims grounded in title trigger Article 65. Courts must be wary of conflating declaratory limitation under Article 58 with possession limitation under Article 65 when both reliefs are pleaded.

• Mutation litigation and civil suits:

  By reiterating that mutation entries do not confer or adjudicate title, the decision affirms litigants’ right to institute regular civil suits even after mutation proceedings—without being stymied by an overbroad application of limitation. This will influence revenue-to-civil litigation transitions across India.

• Adverse possession as a trial issue:

  Defendants invoking adverse possession must be prepared to lead evidence; plaintiffs need not meet that defence in the plaint. Courts should resist using adverse possession as a basis for Order 7 Rule 11(d) rejection.

• Order 2 Rule 2 barriers clarified:

  The Court signals that a prior plaint’s rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 does not, by itself, invoke Order 2 Rule 2. The bar must be established on the classic elements—same cause of action, omission of reliefs then available, intentional relinquishment—typically requiring evidence, and is not a ready-made threshold bar.

• High Courts exercising revisional jurisdiction:

  Where trial courts refuse Order 7 Rule 11 rejection on the ground that limitation is a mixed question, High Courts should be slow to interfere—particularly ex parte—without a careful, plaint-confined analysis.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC:

  A rule enabling courts to reject a plaint if, on its face (from the plaint’s own statements), the suit appears barred by any law (e.g., limitation). Only the plaint can be looked at; the defence case and external materials are excluded at this stage.

• Order 2 Rule 2 CPC:

  Requires a plaintiff to claim all reliefs arising from the same cause of action in one suit; omission may bar a subsequent suit for the omitted relief. The bar is not automatic; it depends on identity of cause of action, available reliefs at the time, and whether there was intentional relinquishment. Dismissal of an earlier plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 generally does not amount to a decision on merits and, by itself, does not trigger an Order 2 Rule 2 bar.

• Mutation:

  An administrative entry in revenue records to track who is liable to pay land revenue. It does not create or extinguish title, nor adjudicate complex civil rights. Hence, parties can still approach civil courts for declaration/possession irrespective of mutation entries.

• Article 58 vs. Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963:

  Article 58: Three years for suits seeking a declaration, from when the right to sue first accrues. Article 65: Twelve years for suits for possession of immovable property based on title, from when the defendant’s possession becomes adverse. When both reliefs are sought, the possession claim may keep the suit alive even if a purely declaratory claim might appear stale.

• Adverse possession:

  A defence by which a person in long, hostile, continuous, and peaceful possession for the statutory period (12 years against private parties) can defeat the true owner’s title. It must be specifically pleaded and proved by the defendant. It is rarely determinable at the plaint stage.

• Wills and their proof in civil proceedings:

  A will operates upon the testator’s death. Outside certain statutory contexts, probate may not be a pre-condition to rely on a will; however, inter se disputes about validity typically require adjudication in a civil suit. Mutation proceedings do not test the will’s validity conclusively.

Conclusion

Karam Singh v. Amarjit Singh is a significant reaffirmation of principled restraint in applying Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC. The Supreme Court has clarified that:

• Limitation analyses at the threshold must be confined to plaint averments and cannot presume or import defences such as adverse possession.
• Where a suit includes a prayer for possession based on title, Article 65 (12 years) governs, and adverse possession must be proved by the defendant at trial.
• Mutation entries are fiscally oriented and non-conclusive for title; their outcomes neither confer title nor preclude civil adjudication on title and possession.
• Even if a declaratory facet might face Article 58 questions, the presence of a timely possession claim prevents rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d).
• A previous plaint’s rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 is not, per se, a bar under Order 2 Rule 2; that contention is appropriately dealt with at trial.

The ruling will shape litigation strategy and judicial practice in property disputes: plaintiffs can safely combine declaratory and possession claims without fear of premature rejection; defendants must reserve limitation and adverse possession arguments for trial. High Courts, meanwhile, are reminded to apply the Order 7 Rule 11(d) filter with care—looking only at the plaint, and resisting the temptation to decide mixed questions of law and fact at the threshold.

Decision: Appeals allowed; High Court orders set aside; trial court’s refusal to reject plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 restored; suit to proceed on merits.