Supreme Court orders rejection of property suit as time-barred despite “clever drafting”

1. Background and procedural history

In Ramisetty Venkatanna & Anr. Vs Nasyam Jamal Saheb & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2717 of 2023, decided on 28/04/2023, the Supreme Court of India examined whether a civil suit for declaration of title and cancellation of documents, instituted in 2014, was liable to be rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule XI(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The appeal arose from a Revision Petition (CRP) No. 179/2021 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. The High Court had upheld the Trial Court’s refusal to reject the plaint in O.S. No. 35/2014, thereby dismissing the defendants’ application under Order VII Rule XI. The unsuccessful defendants (original defendant Nos. 9 and 10) carried the matter in appeal to the Supreme Court.

2. Facts giving rise to the dispute

2.1 Original ownership and partition (1953)

  • One Nasyam Jamal Saheb owned 4 acres 16 cents of land in Survey No. 700/A7B and Survey No. 706/A9 located in Nandyal Town and Mandal, Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh, along with other properties.

  • After his death, his five children:

    1. Nasyam Jafar Saheb
    2. Nasyam Dasthagiri Saheb
    3. Nasyam Ibrahim Saheb
    4. Sarambee
    5. Jainabee

    partitioned his properties, including the above land, by a registered partition deed dated 11.03.1953.

  • Under this partition:

    • N. Ibrahim Saheb, predecessor of the plaintiffs, received 1 acre.
    • Sarambee, predecessor of the vendors of the appellants (defendant Nos. 9 and 10), received 1 acre 16 cents.

2.2 Gift transactions in 1968

  • As absolute owner of 1 acre 16 cents in Survey No. 706/A9, Sarambee:
    • Executed a registered gift deed dated 24.01.1968 in favour of her eldest daughter Kareembee (mother of the vendors of the appellants) with respect to 58 cents.
    • On the same day, by another registered gift deed dated 24.01.1968, gifted the remaining 58 cents in Survey No. 706/A9 to:
      • her daughter Ashabee, and
      • her two sons Khasimsa and Abdul Rajak.

2.3 Subsequent intra-family partitions and sales

  • In 2003, the three sons of Ashabee partitioned the 58 cents gifted earlier; each son received 19.33 cents.
  • After Kareembee passed away, her three sons orally partitioned her share amongst themselves.
  • Two of her sons, Khatif Khaja Hussain and Khatif Noor Ahammed, became co-owners in Survey No. 706/A9.
  • They executed two registered sale deeds dated 24.08.2010 in favour of the appellants (defendant Nos. 9 and 10), transferring:
    • 58 cents in Survey No. 706/A9 for Rs. 14,52,000/- and
    • another parcel for Rs. 13,56,000/-, respectively.
  • Possession of the land was delivered to the appellants, who then developed the property.

2.4 Earlier litigation and settlement (2011)

  • In O.S. No. 39/2011, filed before the III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal, the children of Khatis Khader Basha (third son of Kareembee) sought:

    • partition and
    • separate possession

    of their share in the property already sold to the appellants.

  • The matter was referred to Lok Adalat, where it was settled after the appellants paid Rs. 14,00,000/- to the plaintiffs of that suit.

2.5 Road widening and gift to municipality (2013)

  • In 2013, Nandyal Municipality undertook a project to widen a 30-feet road into an 80-feet master plan road.
  • In this process, 3.5 cents of the appellants’ land was affected.
  • The appellants executed a registered gift deed in favour of the municipality for 3.5 cents (Document No. 2474/2013).
  • In return, the municipality granted transferable development rights to the appellants to the extent of 283.24 sq. meters.

2.6 Institution of O.S. No. 35/2014

In 2014, respondent Nos. 1 to 8 (original plaintiffs) filed O.S. No. 35/2014 seeking:

  1. Declaration of title
    • A declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit property within the boundaries described in the schedule, stated to be located in Survey No. 700/A7B and 706/A9 of Abdulla Khan Thota, Nandyal Municipal Limits, along with:
    • a permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their agents, successors and anyone claiming through them from:
      • trespassing into the suit property, or
      • dispossessing the plaintiffs in any manner.