Plaint Cannot Be Rejected Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Based On Deemed Notice From Registered Documents In Specific Performance Suit: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Court observed that where the plaint specifically pleads the date of actual knowledge and asserts that performance was refused through a reply notice, such averments must be accepted at the threshold stage for the purpose of determining limitation.

The Court further held that questions relating to deemed notice, wilful abstention, gross negligence and the actual date of knowledge are mixed questions of fact and law requiring trial and evidence, and therefore cannot ordinarily form the basis for rejection of the plaint at the stage of registration under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

The Court was hearing a first appeal filed against the judgment of the V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty, whereby the plaint in a suit for specific performance had been rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act.

The Trial Court had held that since certain sale deeds and a gift deed relating to the suit property had been registered in 2004, the plaintiff was deemed to have notice of those transactions from the date of registration under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, and therefore the suit filed in 2010 was barred by limitation.

The Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Balaji Medamalli observed: “The expression used in Article 54 of the Limitation Act is the ‘notice that the performance is refused’. The same is to be considered based on the plaint averments for the purpose of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Here, the performance was said to be refused in the plaint by the reply notice of the defendants. So, on the plaint averment that should be taken as the notice of refusal of performance. However, the learned Trial Court, without observing any such ‘refusal’ against the plaintiff from the plaint, rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, merely on the ground of deemed notice from the date of registration of the registered documents, which cannot be sustained in the eyes of law”.

Advocate Sita Ram Chaparla appeared for the appellant. Advocate N Rupeswar Reddy appeared for the respondents.

Background

The plaintiff instituted a suit for specific performance seeking execution of a registered sale deed pursuant to an agreement of sale dated 05.11.2007.

At the stage of registration of the plaint, the Trial Court raised objections regarding limitation on the ground that defendant Nos.3 and 4 had sold part of the suit property through registered sale deeds dated 17.02.2004 and that defendant No.1 had executed a registered gift deed in favour of defendant No.8 on 19.03.2004.

The plaintiff explained that he came to know about the registered sale deeds and gift deed only in January 2010 and that those transactions had been executed behind his back among family members.

The plaintiff further stated that upon acquiring knowledge of the transactions, he issued a legal notice dated 01.02.2010 calling upon the defendants to receive the balance sale consideration and execute the sale deed pursuant to the agreement. The defendants allegedly refused performance through a reply notice dated 15.02.2010.

However, the Trial Court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, holding that by virtue of Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, the plaintiff was deemed to have notice of the registered documents from the date of their execution and registration, and therefore the suit ought to have been filed within three years therefrom under Article 54 of the Limitation Act.

Court’s Observation

The High Court extensively examined Article 54 of the Limitation Act governing suits for specific performance.

The Court observed that Article 54 consists of two limbs. Where a date is fixed for performance, the limitation begins from the date so fixed. However, where no date is fixed, the limitation begins when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.

Referring to R.K. Parvatharaj Gupta v. K.C. Jayadeva Reddy (2006), Ahmmadsahab Abdul Mulla (2)(D) by LRs v. Bibijan (2009) and Madina Begum v. Shiv Murti Prasad Pandey (2016), the Court reiterated that the phrase “notice that performance is refused” refers to a definite point of time requiring factual determination.

The Court observed: “Whether the date was fixed or not the plaintiff had notice that performance is refused and the date thereof are to be established with reference to materials and evidence to be brought on record.”

The Court then examined Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act dealing with notice and constructive notice.

The Court held that constructive notice under Section 3 cannot automatically be imputed merely because documents are registered. Rather, to disbelieve the plaintiff’s pleaded date of actual knowledge, findings would have to be recorded regarding wilful abstention from enquiry or gross negligence, which necessarily require evidence and trial.

The Court relied upon Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Haji Abdulgafur Haji Hussenbhai (1971), wherein the Supreme Court held that constructive notice is generally a mixed question of fact and law depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

The Court observed:

“ … to impute the notice of registered sale deed and the gift deed, from the date of registration and not from the date of disclosed actual knowledge as stated in the plaint, many questions required determination which could be answered only on the evidence to be led during trial and not at the summary stage under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.”

Referring to Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust v. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle (2024 and Daliben Valjibhai v. Prajapati Kodarbhai Kachrabhai (2024), the Court observed that at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only plaint averments and documents filed with the plaint can be considered, and the plaint must be read as a whole.

The Court held that where the question of limitation involves disputed questions of fact or mixed questions of law and fact, rejection of the plaint at the threshold is impermissible.

The Court also relied upon earlier Andhra Pradesh High Court judgments in Gummadi Usha Rani v. Guduru Venkateswara Rao (2025) and Mikkilineni Yujaya Dinesh Babu v. Pasala Satyavathi (2026), which held that where the plaint specifically pleads the date of knowledge, limitation ordinarily becomes a triable issue.

The Court specifically noted that the plaintiff pleaded that performance was refused through the defendants’ reply notice dated 15.02.2010. Therefore, for the limited purpose of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, such an averment had to be accepted as correct on its face value.

The Court held that the Trial Court committed an error by not examining whether any refusal of performance was pleaded in the plaint, and instead proceeded solely based on the deemed notice arising from the registration of documents.

Conclusion

The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the plaint could not have been rejected under Order VII, Rule 11(d) of the CPC at the stage of registration merely based on a deemed notice from registered documents.

The Court held that the plaintiff’s pleaded date of actual knowledge and the averment that performance was refused through the reply notice had to be accepted for the limited purpose of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, and questions relating to constructive notice and limitation required adjudication during trial.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree dated 06.04.2010 rejecting the plaint, revived the plaint and directed the Trial Court to register the suit and proceed in accordance with law.

The Court, however, clarified that issues relating to limitation under either limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act could still be decided by the Trial Court during the course of trial without being influenced by observations made in the judgment.

Cause Title: St. Katwal Abubakar v. Abbavaram Subba Reddy & Ors.

Appearances

Appellant: Advocate Sita Ram Chaparla.

Respondents: Advocates N. Rupeswar Reddy, V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, S. Noor Mohammed, O. Manoher Reddy

Click here to read/download Judgment