Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC in Cases Involving Disputed Limitation and Power of Attorney

A Two Judge Bench comprising of Judges Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan passed a Judgment dated April 29,2025 in the case of P.Kumarakurubaran Versus P.Narayana & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 5622 of 2025 [ Arising from SLP (C ) No. 2549 of 2021] wherein the Supreme Court held that reinforces the principle that issues of limitation, especially when intertwined with questions of fact such as knowledge of alleged fraud or unauthorized actions under a Power of Attorney, cannot be summarily decided without a full-fledged trial.

This Civil Appeal arises out of the final Judgment passed by Madras High Court wherein the High Court allowed Civil Revision Petition rejecting the Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that suit was barred by limitation.

Brief Facts of the Case

The Appellant was assigned a vacant site by Special Tahsildar, Tamil Nadu on 05.05.1974 in which he constructed the house. He made a power of attorney in favour of his father which was registered on 06.01.1978 (Power of Attorney). His father executed the sale deed on 10.10.1988. The Appellant challenged the transfer as the Power of Attorney did not authorize his father to alienate the property. Subsequently, he applied for individual patta on 2012. Meanwhile, the defendants executed a settlement deed among themselves. The defendants made application for building permission in 2013 to which appellant filed his objection.

The Respondents filed an interlocutory Application seeking rejection of Plaint on the ground that suit was undervalued and was barred by limitation. The Appellant instituted a suit in the Trial Court declaring that the Appellant is the legal owner, resolving the issue of permanent injunction, declaring the sale deed, settlement deed amongst the defendants and General Power of Attorney as null and void.

Analysis of Judgment of Trial Court and High Court

The Additional District and Sessions Judge dismissed the Interlocutory Application of the Respondents observing that the it needed a detailed trial based on material facts, records and other issues. The High Court rejected the Revision Petition by Order in 2020 after having held that the suit was barred by limitation.

Arguments by Appellants

The Appellant’s advocate submitted that the High Court erred when it rejected the plaint on the ground of limitation filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. He submitted that the Rejection of Plaint either on the ground of limitation or valuation without affording the Appellant an opportunity to adduce evidence is contrary to the settled principles of law. He further submitted that the Power of Attorney was confined solely to matters relating to construction and obtaining necessary approvals. In absence of authority to alienate the property, the execution of sale deed and the settlement deed by the Respondents is wholly without jurisdiction and stands vitiated by fraud.

Arguments by Respondents

On the other hand, the Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the present Appeal is liable to be dismissed as the suit filed by the Appellant was barred by limitation.

Issue Raised

The issue to be decided in the present case was that

“Whether the Rejection of Plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC was justified in the facts and circumstances of the present case?”

Analysis of the Legal Points

The Hon’ble Supreme Court analysed Article 59 of the Limitation Act 1963 which governs the suits seeking cancellation of an instrument and prescribes a period of limitation of three years from the date plaintiff first had knowledge of the facts entitling him to such relief. Article 59 is on the accrual of the cause of action. In cases of fraud or unauthorized execution of documents, limitation starts from the date on which the plaintiff acquired knowledge of such facts.

Analysis by Hon’ble Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that the Appellant had averred that upon becoming aware of registration of documents, he immediately approached the Additional Commissioner of Police and lodged the land grabbing complaint.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the Trial Court’s order and held that the issue of limitation necessitated adjudication upon evidence in view that the Power of Attorney executed by him did not confer any authority upon his father to alienate the suit property and that the transaction came to his knowledge only at much later point of time. The Hon’ble Court observed that the he executed the registered Power of Attorney in favour of his father solely for the limited purpose of constructing a house and carrying out related activities. The Court also observed that there was no express clause authorizing his father to sell the suit property to any person without Appellant’s consent and knowledge.

The Supreme Court further noted that, “Rejecting a plaint where substantial factual disputes exist concerning limitation and the scope of authority under Power of Attorney is legally unsustainable”

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s Judgment in P. Kumarakurubaran v. P. Narayana & Ors. reinforces the principle that issues of limitation, especially when intertwined with questions of fact such as knowledge of alleged fraud or unauthorized actions under a Power of Attorney, cannot be summarily decided without a full-fledged trial. The Court rightly held that rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC was inappropriate in the present case, as it prematurely curtailed the Appellant’s right to establish his claims through evidence. By emphasizing that the scope of authority under a Power of Attorney and the accrual of the cause of action under Article 59 of the Limitation Act are matters requiring evidentiary adjudication, the Supreme Court has underscored the need for a fair trial when substantial factual disputes are involved. This Judgment reaffirms the necessity of procedural safeguards in civil litigation and guards against unjust dismissal of suits at a threshold stage.

TRISHA SAXENA
SENIOR LEGAL ASSOCIATE

THE INDIAN LAWYER & ALLIED SERVICES

Please log on to our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest video, titled :”Understanding Bails”, can be viewed at the link below:

What is Bail? Complete Guide to Bail Process & Legal Rights|Advocate Sushila Ram Varma#bail #legal