LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More


Nasyam Jamal Saheb owned 4 acres 16 cents of land in Andhra Pradesh. After his death, the property was partitioned between his five children (Nasyam Jafar Saheb, Nasyam Dasthagiri Saheb, Nasyam Ibrahim Saheb, Sarambee, and Jainabee). Sarambee executed a registered gift deed for her eldest daughter Kareembee and gifted the remaining to her other daughter Ashabee and her two sons. The land was further partitioned by the three sons of Ashabee. After the demise of Kareembee, her three sons partitioned the land, and two of her sons sold the land. In 2011, the third son of Kareembee filed a suit to seek partition and separate possession of the property, which was referred to the Lok Adalat and settled. In 2013, the Nandyal Municipality initiated a road-widening program where the appellant's land was affected. The appellants executed a registered gift deed in favor of the municipality, and subsequently, the respondents initiated a suit declaring the title of the plaintiffs to the suit property. The appellants filed the present case when their application to reject the plaint in the exercise of powers under Order VII Rule XI(a) and (d) of CPC was dismissed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.


Counsels representing the appellants contended that the dismissal of the application was a grave error on the part of the Trial court and High court. It was submitted that the suit was barred by limitation as it was filed 61 years after the deed was executed, and hence the plaint should be rejected. The counsels representing the respondents submitted that the dispute concerned is limited to the wrong survey number mentioned therein concerning the share of Nasyam Ibrahim, Sarambee, and Jainabee.


The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the order passed by the trial court and high court as it was not maintainable. The bench consisting of Justice MR Shah and Justice CT Ravikumar held that a plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule XI(a) and (d) of the CPC if it is vexatious, illusory, or barred by limitation. The bench also pointed out that the plaintiffs have cleverly not prayed for any relief for the partition deed to evade the provision of the limitation act.

What do you think about this judgment? Write down in the comments below! 

"Loved reading this piece by Diya Pradeep?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"

Tags :

  Views  402  Report