Woman Claimed She Was Illegally Dispossessed from Plot After 40 Years; Delhi High Court Revives Her Possession Suit
Facts
The appellants challenged the trial court’s order rejecting, under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, a suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 seeking restoration of possession and permanent injunction.
According to the plaintiff, she purchased the suit property in 1979 through GPA, Agreement to Sell and related documents, raised boundary walls and construction, remained in possession for decades, and was forcibly dispossessed by the defendants on 20 September 2019, who allegedly broke the locks, demolished the structures and occupied the land. An FIR was subsequently registered regarding the alleged trespass.
Issues
- Whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action for restoration of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.
- Whether the trial court could reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 by relying upon the defendants’ documents and disputed questions of fact.
- Whether issues relating to title, possession and limitation required adjudication after evidence.
Appellants’ Arguments
The appellants argued that:
- the plaint disclosed several triable issues;
- the trial court wrongly relied upon defence documents, FIR investigation and a closure report while deciding Order VII Rule 11;
- only the averments in the plaint could be examined at that stage;
- the suit was within limitation after taking into account the Supreme Court’s COVID limitation extensions;
- disputed questions regarding title, possession and alleged forged documents required a full trial.
Respondents’ Arguments
The respondents contended that:
- the property belonged to them;
- the plaintiff never had possession;
- the documents relied upon by the plaintiff were forged and fabricated;
- revenue records did not support the plaintiff’s title;
- the suit was barred by limitation and disclosed no enforceable cause of action.
Analysis of the Law
The High Court examined the limited scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, reiterating that while deciding an application for rejection of plaint, the Court is concerned only with the averments contained in the plaint and the documents relied upon by the plaintiff.
The Court observed that disputed questions regarding title, possession, genuineness of documents and limitation ordinarily require evidence and cannot be conclusively determined at the threshold merely on the basis of the defendant’s version.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied upon well-settled Supreme Court precedents including:
- Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Assistant Charity Commissioner (2004) 3 SCC 137 — only the plaint is relevant while deciding Order VII Rule 11.
- Liverpool & London S.P. & I Association Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I (2004) 9 SCC 512 — a plaint should not be rejected where it discloses a cause of action.
- The trial court had relied on Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana (2012) 1 SCC 656 regarding GPA transactions, but the High Court held that the broader factual disputes still required adjudication at trial.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court found that the trial court had exceeded the permissible scope of Order VII Rule 11 by:
- relying upon defence material and criminal investigation records;
- deciding disputed questions of ownership and possession;
- evaluating the evidentiary value of documents at the preliminary stage;
- effectively conducting a mini-trial before evidence was recorded.
The Court held that these issues required proper adjudication after parties were permitted to lead evidence.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court allowed the Regular First Appeal, set aside the order rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, and restored the plaintiff’s suit for adjudication on merits before the trial court. The Court held that disputed questions concerning possession, title, limitation and the genuineness of documents cannot be decided while considering an application for rejection of the plaint.
Case Details
Case: Santosh Kumari (Now Deceased) through LRs Satish Gupta & Anr. v. Lokesh Yadav & Anr.
Court: Delhi High Court
Case No.: RFA 376/2026
Judge: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Date: 27 July 2026
Result: Appeal allowed. The order rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was set aside, and the suit seeking restoration of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act was restored for trial on merits.
