Rebuttable Notice from Registration and Mixed-Question Limitation: AP High Court Restricts Pre‑Registration Rejection under Order VII Rule 11 and Directs Court‑Fee Refund

Introduction

In A.S. No. 409 of 2025, decided on 08.10.2025, a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh (Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Hon’ble Sri Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam) set aside an order rejecting a plaint at the very threshold—at the stage of registration by the trial court—on the grounds of limitation and absence of cause of action. The appeal arose from an order dated 06.05.2025 of the II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, which, acting on an office objection (“How the suit is within limitation? Explain”), rejected the plaint after hearing plaintiffs’ counsel, without issuing notice to the defendants.

The plaintiffs (appellants) sought a comprehensive decree including: (a) declaration of title in respect of “B” and “C” schedule properties by holding specified registered sale deeds/GPA transactions void and non-binding; (b) consequential recovery of possession; and (c) permanent injunctions against further alienation and interference. The trial court relied on the principle that registration of documents is notice to the world to impute knowledge to the plaintiffs from the dates of registration (1995–2003), and further invoked the dismissal of an earlier suit (O.S. No. 372 of 2015) to conclude that there was no cause of action.

The High Court addressed two core issues:

Whether rejection of the plaint at pre-registration stage under Order VII Rule 11 CPC could be sustained on limitation and “no cause of action.”
Whether the appellants were entitled to refund of the court fee paid on the memo of appeal under Sections 63–64 of the A.P. Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court held that limitation, on the facts pleaded, was a mixed question of law and fact; it could not be decided to reject the plaint at the filing/registration stage under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Registration of instruments is constructive notice but does not irrebuttably fix knowledge for limitation; where the plaint pleads a distinct “date of knowledge,” that plea must be tested by evidence at trial.
In suits combining declaration with consequential recovery of possession based on title, the operative limitation for the suit is governed by Article 65 (12 years from when possession becomes adverse), with the declaration being ancillary (as per the Supreme Court’s decision in N. Thajudeen).
Prior litigation (O.S. No. 372 of 2015) did not justify rejection: the effect of Order II Rule 2 CPC, res judicata, or want of cause of action required factual determination and could not be decided at the preliminary registration stage.
Partial rejection is impermissible; if any relief survives, Order VII Rule 11 cannot be used to scuttle the suit.
The order of rejection was set aside; the trial court was directed to receive the plaint and register the suit.
Full refund of court fee paid on the appeal was directed under Section 64 of the A.P. Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

N. Thajudeen v. Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board (24.10.2024):
The Supreme Court clarified that:
- Articles 56–58 of the Limitation Act prescribe three years for declaratory suits, but where declaration is coupled with a further relief (e.g., recovery of possession), the declaration is ancillary and the limitation is governed by the further relief sought.
- For recovery of possession based on title, Article 65 applies—12 years from when the defendant’s possession becomes adverse.
- Declared that suits for declaration of title are not barred so long as the right subsists (relying on C. Mohammad Yunus v. Syed Unnissa).
The High Court applied this to hold that, at minimum, the possession relief could not be treated as time-barred at the threshold; hence, the plaint could not be rejected in limine.
VINOD INFRA DEVELOPERS LTD. v. MAHAVEER LUNIA (2025 LiveLaw (SC) 630):
Reiterates that Order VII Rule 11 CPC is confined to the plaint and its documents; contested factual issues should go to trial. This guided the High Court to avoid adjudicating disputed knowledge/limitation at filing stage.
P. Kumarakurubaran v. P. Narayana (2025 LiveLaw (SC) 509):
Establishes that whether and when the plaintiff had knowledge is a matter requiring evidence; limitation cannot be decided against the plaintiff at the threshold if knowledge is pleaded.
THANKAMMA GEORGE v. LILLY THOMAS (2024 (5) ALD 18 (SC)):
Recognizes that the starting point for limitation in challenges to instruments includes the facet of knowledge; knowledge cannot be lightly presumed without clear proof.
Central Bank of India v. Prabha Jain ((2025) 4 SCC 38):
Used to affirm that there can be no partial rejection of a plaint; if any relief survives scrutiny, the plaint as a whole must be received, forestalling the trial court’s approach.
Hussain Ahmed Choudhury v. Habibur Rahman (C.A. No. 5470/2025):
Clarifies the distinction between suits for cancellation (executant must seek cancellation) and suits for declaration (non-executant may seek declaration of non-bindingness). This underscores that the plaintiffs’ form of relief (declaration that third-party instruments are null/void/non-binding) is procedurally appropriate and cannot be dismissed out of hand.
Smt. Uma Devi v. Sri Anand Kumar (2025 LiveLaw (SC) 382), Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust v. Udayan Raje (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3844), and Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal ((2017) 13 SCC 174):
These decisions are often cited for the “meaningful reading of the plaint” and the power to “nip in the bud” cleverly drafted, illusory causes of action under Order VII Rule 11. The High Court explained that, unlike Uma Devi (where decades-old transactions, acknowledged partitions, and registered sale deeds coexisted with a belated suit devoid of pleaded dates of knowledge), the present plaint specifically pleaded recent dates of knowledge and dispossession, creating triable issues. Thus, Uma Devi did not justify rejection at filing stage here.
Sopanrao v. Syed Mehmood (AIR 2019 SC 3113):
Supports the principle that the plaint must be looked at as a whole; a court cannot travel beyond plaint averments for Order VII Rule 11.
Suraj Lamp & Industries v. State of Haryana ((2012) 1 SCC 656):
Though not decisive at this stage, Suraj Lamp underscores that GPA/SA/Will transactions do not, by themselves, convey title; this provides context to the plaintiffs’ plea that certain GPA-linked conveyances are void/non-binding—a contention to be tested at trial.
VELURU PRABHAVATHI v. SIRIGIREDDY ARJUN REDDY (AIR Online 2024 AP 1122):
Cited to grant refund of court fee upon setting aside an order rejecting the plaint, applying Section 64 of the A.P. Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act.

Legal Reasoning

The High Court’s reasoning proceeds in three interlocking steps:

Scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC at pre-registration stage: The court emphasized that at the threshold, the judicial gaze is limited to the plaint and documents filed with it, read as a whole and in a meaningful manner. If the plaint discloses a cause of action and the limitation issue depends on disputed facts (e.g., date of knowledge, nature/timelines of possession, whether and when adverse possession began), rejection is impermissible. Here, the plaint pleaded specific dates: cross-examination on 15.12.2021 leading to investigation, discovery in the first week of January 2022 of void documents, and alleged dispossession in February 2023. These averments made limitation a mixed question.
Registration as constructive notice is rebuttable for limitation: The trial court treated registration of sale deeds (1995–2003) as conclusive notice to the plaintiffs and started the clock from the dates of registration. The High Court corrected this: while registration provides constructive notice to the world (cf. Section 3, Transfer of Property Act), whether and when a particular plaintiff actually had knowledge, for the purpose of limitation (especially in challenges to instruments or for declaratory relief), can be a factual matter. A plaint that pleads a later date of knowledge cannot be rejected without trial, unless the pleadings themselves negate that plea. This aligns with Thankamma George and P. Kumarakurubaran.
Relief structure and the governing Article of limitation: The court applied N. Thajudeen to hold that when a plaintiff seeks declaration plus consequential recovery of possession based on title, the declaration is ancillary to the primary relief of possession. The suit’s limitation is then anchored in Article 65—twelve years from when possession becomes adverse—not Article 58 alone. Consequently, even if the declaration were arguendo time-barred (a contention the court did not accept at this stage), the possession relief would independently survive, precluding rejection of the plaint.

On the “no cause of action” limb, the trial court’s reliance on the dismissal of O.S. No. 372 of 2015 was held premature. The High Court noted that:

An appeal (A.S. No. 261 of 2023) against that decree is pending.
Whether the current relief is barred by Order II Rule 2 CPC (omission/relinquishment in the earlier suit), operates as res judicata, or lacks cause of action are fact-intensive inquiries that cannot be conclusively determined at the pre-registration stage.
The plaintiffs have pleaded a fresh cause of action based on later knowledge and recent dispossession, which must be tested on evidence.

Finally, the High Court ordered refund of the court fee on the appeal, applying Section 64 of the A.P. Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956, because the plaint—earlier rejected—was now ordered to be received and registered.

Impact

This decision is likely to have a significant operational and doctrinal impact in Andhra Pradesh:

Checks on pre-registration rejections: It curtails a growing practice of rejecting plaints at the filing desk or at the earliest judicial screening on speculative limitation grounds. Trial courts must resist deciding disputed limitation issues without evidence.
Clarifies interplay of Articles 58/59/65: Where declaration travels with a possession claim based on title, Article 65 can be determinative for the suit’s survivability at the threshold—reducing the risk of premature dismissal.
Refines “registration = notice” for limitation: While registration imparts constructive notice, this judgment makes clear it is not an irrebuttable presumption for starting limitation when the plaint pleads a later, specific date of knowledge.
Guides pleading practice: Plaintiffs challenging old instruments must plead the date and circumstances of discovery; when coupled with possession-based relief, they can better withstand Order VII Rule 11 scrutiny.
Reinforces no partial rejection: Even if one relief appears time-barred, a surviving relief (e.g., possession) bars wholesale rejection—ensuring suits proceed to trial when any triable issue exists.
Financial relief via court-fee refunds: By directing refund under Section 64 when a rejection is set aside and the plaint is ordered to be received, the court offers meaningful relief to appellants and signals remedial fairness.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Order VII Rule 11 CPC (Rejection of plaint): A plaint can be rejected only on limited grounds apparent from the plaint itself (e.g., no cause of action; barred by any law; undervaluation; insufficient stamping; suit appears from the plaint to be barred by law). The court cannot look into the defence nor resolve factual disputes at this stage.
“Mixed question of law and fact”: An issue that depends both on legal principles and on facts requiring evidence (e.g., whether the plaintiff knew or reasonably should have known of a transaction on a particular date). Such issues are typically not decided at the threshold.
Registration as “notice”: Registration of documents concerning immovable property is constructive notice to the world. However, for limitation, courts often require proof of when the plaintiff actually knew or could reasonably be deemed to have known—especially in fraud/invalidity challenges.
Articles 58, 59, 64, 65 (Limitation Act, 1963):
- Article 58: Three years for suits seeking declarations, from when the right to sue first accrues.
- Article 59: Three years to cancel/set aside instruments/decrees, from when the plaintiff has knowledge of the facts entitling such relief.
- Article 64: Twelve years for possession based on prior possession, when dispossessed.
- Article 65: Twelve years for possession based on title, from when the defendant’s possession becomes adverse to the plaintiff.
When declaration is coupled with recovery of possession based on title, courts often treat the declaration as ancillary and apply Article 65 to the suit’s core relief (as affirmed in N. Thajudeen).
Executant vs Non-executant challenges: Executants of a deed typically must sue for cancellation (Article 59; Section 31 Specific Relief Act). Non-executants may seek a declaration that the instrument is invalid/not binding (Section 34 SRA), without necessarily seeking cancellation. The choice of relief affects limitation analysis.
Order II Rule 2 CPC (Splitting claims and causes of action): Requires a plaintiff to include the whole of the claim arising from a cause of action. Omission or intentional relinquishment may bar a subsequent suit; however, applying this bar often requires fact-finding and cannot usually be decided at the filing stage.
“Meaningful reading” vs “Clever drafting”: Courts can reject plaints if allegations, even if taken as true, show no right to sue or reveal an illusory cause of action. But where material facts (e.g., date of knowledge; dispossession) are squarely pleaded, the suit should proceed to trial.

Conclusion

This decision crystallizes several important constraints on the use of Order VII Rule 11 CPC at the pre-registration stage. Most notably, it affirms that registration of an instrument does not irrebuttably impute knowledge for limitation purposes when the plaint claims a later date of knowledge, and that limitation in suits for declaration coupled with possession based on title is governed by Article 65—embedding the Supreme Court’s guidance in N. Thajudeen. The High Court also emphasizes that prior litigation, potential Order II Rule 2 bars, or res judicata questions frequently entail mixed issues requiring trial.

Operationally, the judgment safeguards access to trial where pleadings disclose a cause of action and triable issues on limitation, curbs premature rejections, reiterates the bar on partial rejection, and ensures equitable restitution through court-fee refunds under Section 64 of the A.P. Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act when wrongful rejection orders are set aside. For trial courts, it is a reminder to read plaints holistically, avoid conclusory inferences on knowledge from mere registration, and reserve adjudication of disputed limitation issues for the evidentiary stage. For litigants, it underscores the importance of precise pleadings on cause of action, date of knowledge, and possession, particularly when challenging long‑past transactions.