JUDGMENT : Moushumi Bhattacharya, J. 1. The appellant/plaintiff has filed the Appeal Suit against an order dated 14.07.2025 passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar, in I.A.No.772 of 2022 in O.S.No.1064 of 2022, filed by the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 in the plaintiff’s Suit. 2. The plaintiff filed the Suit in O.S.No.1064 of 2022 for declaration of ownership, perpetual injunction and mandatory injunction and for a declaration that the registered General Power of Attorney bearing document No.45/2006 dated 01.06.2006, registered Sale Deed bearing document No.4938/2008 dated 25.11.2008 and registered Sale Deed bearing document No.25283/2015 dated 09.12.2015 are sham, null and void and not binding on the plaintiff, along with rectification of revenue records and rectification of boundaries. 3. The respondent No.1/defendant No.1 filed I.A.No.772 of 2022 in O.S.No.1064 of 2022 for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) and 11(d) of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) on the grounds that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action and was barred by the law of limitation. 4. By the impugned order dated 14.07.2025, the Trial Court allowed I.A.No.772 of 2022 i.e., the application for rejection of the plaint filed in the plaintiff’s Suit. 5. The plaintiff is the appellant before this Court. The respondent No.1/defendant No.1 is the sole contesting respondent before this Court. 6. By the impugned order, the Trial Court accepted the contention of the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 that the earlier Suit filed by the respondent No.1 in 2016 (O.S.No.231 of 2016) gave a cause of action to the plaintiff to file a Suit for declaration while the other reliefs sought for in O.S.No.1064 of 2022 were barred by limitation. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff submits that paragraph 27 of the plaint clearly states that the cause of action for filing the Suit arose in May, 2022, when the defendant No.1 trespassed into the Suit schedule property and illegally erected temporary concrete plates in the south-west corner therein. Counsel further submits that the respondent No.3, along with other respondents, sold the Suit schedule land to the brother of the appellant through a registered Sale Deed dated 08.07.1980. Subsequently, the brother of the appellant executed a registered Gift Deed dated 24.07.1987, transferring the Suit schedule land in favour of the appellant. 8. Counsel further submits that the respondent No.3, along with other respondents, sold the Suit schedule land to the brother of the appellant through a registered Sale Deed dated 08.07.1980. Subsequently, the brother of the appellant executed a registered Gift Deed dated 24.07.1987, transferring the Suit schedule land in favour of the appellant. 8. The Revenue Authorities, after conducting a de novo enquiry, issued an ORC (Occupancy Rights Certificate) in favour of the appellant/plaintiff on 08.04.1996 and mutated his name as pattedar. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s name was recorded as the pattedar and possessor in the revenue records from 1995-1996 onwards. 9. Counsel submits that the respondent No.3 alienated the land bearing Sy.No.272 admeasuring Ac.01.00 gts., in Thurka Yamjal Village, by executing a General Power of Attorney dated 01.06.2006 followed by a registered Sale Deed dated 25.11.2008 in favour of the respondent No.2. It is also submitted that the respondent No.2 filed a Suit O.S.No.603 of 2015, which was later dismissed as not pressed on 02.03.2016 after the respondent No.2 having admitted that the appellant is the owner and possessor of the Suit schedule land as reflected in paragraph 8 of I.A.No.510 of 2015 filed therein. While the said Suit was pending, the respondent No.2 sold the land in favour of the respondent No.1 through registered Sale Deed dated 09.12.2015. 10. Counsel further submits that the respondent No.1 is seeking to take advantage of the order granting temporary injunction passed by the High Court on 02.06.2021 in CMA No.421 of 2020 allowing I.A.No.503 of 2019 in O.S.No.231 of 2016, while suppressing material facts in respect of the Suit schedule property. Counsel urges that the Trial Court in the impugned order dated 14.07.2025 failed to appreciate the scope of enquiry under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC and took into account the contentions of the respondent No.1 in the written statement instead of limiting its consideration only to the averments in the plaint and the documents filed therewith. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 (the petitioner in I.A.No.772 of 2022 in O.S.No.1064 of 2022 filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC) submits that the averments in the plaint in O.S.No.1064 of 2022 establish the knowledge of the appellant/plaintiff about the existence of several registered documents sought to be cancelled in the said Suit, in 2016 itself when the respondent No.1 had filed O.S.No.231 of 2016. 12. 12. Counsel relies on the paragraph Nos.10, 15 and 16 in the plaint to show that the plaintiff had knowledge of the pendency of the earlier Suit filed by the respondent No.1 (O.S.No.231 of 2016) seeking declaration of tile while referring to the documents sought to be cancelled in that Suit. Counsel relies on section 3 of The Transfer of Property Act, 1882, on the point of ‘constructive notice’ of the said documents and Article 58 of the schedule to The Limitation Act, 1963, to emphasize that the Suit is barred by limitation on account of passage of three years from the date of knowledge of existence of the documents. 13. The question which arises before us is whether the Trial Court was correct in allowing the respondent/defendant No.1’s Interlocutory Application for rejection of plaint on the ground that the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC as the claim therein was barred by the law of limitation and the plaintiff did not have a cause of action to file the Suit (O.S.No.1064 of 2022). 14. It is elementary that for considering a question with respect to the rejection of a plaint, the Court is only required to consider the averments made in the plaint. Hence, the statements made in the plaint are necessary to decide as to whether the plaintiff had a cause of action to file the Suit and whether the plaint was barred by the law of limitation. Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC provides that a plaint shall be rejected in the six cases set out under the said Rule including where the plaint does not disclose a cause of action [Sub-rule (a)] and where the Suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law [Sub-rule (d)]. These were also the grounds taken by the respondent No.1 to seek rejection of the plaint filed by the appellant in O.S.No.1064 of 2022. 15. The prayer in the plaint seeks reliefs, inter alia, for Declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner, pattedar and possessor of the Suit Schedule Lands and for Rectification of the Registered Sale Deed dated 08.07.1980 and the Registered Gift Settlement Deed dated 24.07.1987. 15. The prayer in the plaint seeks reliefs, inter alia, for Declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner, pattedar and possessor of the Suit Schedule Lands and for Rectification of the Registered Sale Deed dated 08.07.1980 and the Registered Gift Settlement Deed dated 24.07.1987. The plaintiff has also sought for Declaration that the Registered General Power of Attorney dated 01.06.2006 and the Registered Sale Deeds dated 25.11.2008 and 09.12.2015 are null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. The prayer in the plaint is relevant since Article 58 of the Schedule to The Limitation Act, 1963, stipulates a limitation period of three years from the time when the right to sue first accrues for obtaining any other Declaration. The limitation period of three years from accrual of the plaintiff’s right to sue would precipitate a closer look at the specific statements made in the plaint itself. 16. Paragraph 10 of the plaint states that the defendant No.1 filed in the earlier Suit in 2016 (O.S.No.231 of 2016) in respect of the land in Sy.No.272 admeasuring Ac.01.00 gts., for Declaration and Perpetual Injunction. Prayer (a) of the plaint reflects that the plaintiff sought Declaration of Title in the present Suit of 2022 in respect of land in the same survey number i.e., Sy.No.272 of Thurka Yamjal Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. From the averments made in paragraph 10, it is clear that the plaintiff was very much aware of the Suit filed by the respondent No.1 in 2016 since the plaintiff was the defendant therein. 17. Paragraphs 15 and 16 of the plaint reiterate the fact of the defendant No.1’s Suit including an IA having been filed therein for interim injunction against the plaintiff. The averments made in the plaint in respect of the Suit filed by the defendant No.1 in 2016 in respect of the land situated in the same survey number makes it evident that the plaintiff had knowledge of the dispute since 2016 itself which in turn required the plaintiff to obtain a Declaration in respect of the Suit Schedule Land, if the plaintiff was so advised, within three years of such knowledge. This means that the plaintiff should have filed the Suit for Declaration within three years of 2016 i.e., within 2019 as stipulated under Article 58 of the Schedule to The Limitation Act, 1963. The plaintiff however filed the Suit in 2022. 18. This means that the plaintiff should have filed the Suit for Declaration within three years of 2016 i.e., within 2019 as stipulated under Article 58 of the Schedule to The Limitation Act, 1963. The plaintiff however filed the Suit in 2022. 18. Article 59 of the Schedule to The Limitation Act, 1963, would also be relevant in the present facts since Article 59 pertaining to a Suit for the cancellation or setting aside of an Instrument or Decree or for the rescission of a Contract, stipulates a limitation period of three years from the date of knowledge of the facts which would entitle the plaintiff to have the Instrument or Decree cancelled or set aside or have the contract rescinded. 19. As stated above, at least two of the reliefs prayed for in the plaint in O.S.No.1064 of 2022 seek rectification of registered Sale Deed dated 08.07.1980 and a registered Gift Settlement Deed dated 24.07.1987. Hence, the plaintiff was under an additional obligation under Article 59 of the Schedule to The Limitation Act, 1963 to seek cancellation of the registered instruments/Sale Deeds within three years from the date of knowledge of the plaintiff which would be three years from 2016 (i.e., when the plaintiff was made a party defendant to the Suit filed by the respondent No.1 i.e., O.S.No.231 of 2016). Thus, we are constrained to hold that the plaint filed in the Suit was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC as being barred by the law of Limitation. 20. The Court also finds substance in the contention of learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 that the plaintiff was deemed to have ‘constructive notice’ of the registered documents as envisaged under section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (‘1882 Act’), as all the documents of which rectification was sought for, are public documents. The fact that the plaintiff failed to file a Suit for Declaration within the limitation period as provided for under Article 58 of the Schedule to The Limitation Act, 1963 also raises a doubt on the plaintiff’s cause of action for filing the Suit in 2022. 21. The fact that the plaintiff failed to file a Suit for Declaration within the limitation period as provided for under Article 58 of the Schedule to The Limitation Act, 1963 also raises a doubt on the plaintiff’s cause of action for filing the Suit in 2022. 21. Paragraph 35 of the plaint avers that the cause of action for filing the Suit arose in the first week of May, 2022, when the defendant No.1 illegally and unlawfully trespassed and made temporary concrete plates on the plaintiff’s property and again on 05.06.2022, when the defendant No.1 tried to trespass and questioned the right and title of the plaintiff over the Suit Schedule Land and threatened to dispossess the plaintiff from the Suit Schedule Land. 22. Paragraph 37 avers that the Suit is filed well within time, since the defendant No.1 and his men trespassed into the plaintiff’s property and illegally erected temporary concrete plates in the first week of May, 2022. Paragraphs 35 and 37 however are inconsistent with the averments in paragraph 10 of the plaint where the plaintiff categorically states that the defendant No.1 filed a Suit in 2016 against the plaintiff for the relief of Declaration and Perpetual Injunction in respect of land in Sy.No.272. Paragraph 10 further goes on to state that the defendant No.1 filed the Suit in 2016 on the basis of having purchased the land from the defendant No.2 under a registered Sale Deed dated 09.12.2015. In this context, it is to be noted that prayer (J) of the plaint seeks a Declaration that the Sale Deed dated 09.12.2015 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. Hence, it is evident from the averments made in paragraphs 35 and 37 that they are made only to save the limitation period and introduce a cause of action which is non-existent and contrary to the admitted facts in the plaint. 23. The cause of action is further diluted, if not demolished, by the averments made in paragraph 15 of the plaint where it is stated that the IA No.503 of 2019 filed by the defendant No.1 in O.S.No.231 of 2016 was dismissed by the Trial Court on 11.02.2020. Thereafter, the defendant No.1 preferred CMA No.421 of 2020 before the High Court and the CMA was allowed on 02.06.2021. Thereafter, the defendant No.1 preferred CMA No.421 of 2020 before the High Court and the CMA was allowed on 02.06.2021. The plaintiff challenged the said order before the Supreme Court by way of SLP (C) No.11286 of 2021 which was dismissed on 16.12.2021. The aforesaid statements would further establish that the plaintiff could not succeed up to the Supreme Court and the order of the High Court allowing the CMA filed by the defendant No.1 on 02.06.2021 was confirmed and remained so till the filing of the plaintiff’s Suit in 2022. The above paragraphs lead to the inescapable conclusion that the plaint in O.S.No.1064 of 2022 failed to establish a cause of action. The Court is informed that the plaintiff is continuing to contest the Suit filed by the defendant No.1 i.e., O.S.No.231 of 2016 before the Trial Court. 24. The cases cited on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff are required to be placed in context. In Salim D. Agboatwala v. Shamalji Oddhavji Thakkar , (2021) 17 SCC 100 , the Supreme Court came to a specific finding that the answer to the issue whether notices were served on the plaintiff/limitation could only be ascertained at trial. In P.V.Guru Raj Reddy v. P.Neeradha Reddy , (2015) 8 SCC 331 reiterated that rejection of a plaint on the ground of limitation must be carefully adjudicated on the basis of the pleadings in the plaint. 25. The Supreme Court in Central Bank of India v. Prabha Jain , (2025) 4 SCC 38 held that there cannot be partial rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, and even if one relief survives, the plaint cannot be rejected under the said provision. This case is not applicable to the facts of the present case since the Trial Court rightly found that the plaint failed to disclose a cause of action and was also barred by Law. Jageshwarai Devi v. Shatrughan Ram , (2007) 15 SCC 52 noted the difference between non-disclosure of a cause of action and a defective cause of action and held that while the former falls within the scope of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, the latter should be decided during trial of the Suit. 26. Jageshwarai Devi v. Shatrughan Ram , (2007) 15 SCC 52 noted the difference between non-disclosure of a cause of action and a defective cause of action and held that while the former falls within the scope of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, the latter should be decided during trial of the Suit. 26. On the other hand, Khatri Hotels (P) Ltd. v. Union of India , (2011) 9 SCC 126 clearly laid down that the Court must ascertain as to when the right to sue first accrue to the appellants before the Supreme Court and also noted clear drafting of the plaint to convey an impression that the right to sue accrued to the appellants much later when they learnt about the wrong recording of entries in Khasra Revenue records. Whereas, the cause of action actually accrued much earlier in 1990. 27. Shri MukundBhavan Trust v. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Majaraj Bhonsle , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3844 involved, inter alia, ascertaining the limitation period for setting aside the sale deed and the Supreme Court relied on Article 59 of the Limitation Act which provides for limitation of three years and accordingly held that the plaintiff was barred from seeking cancellation of the registered sale deed. 28. The Supreme Court in Uma Devi v. Anand Kumar , (2025) 5 SCC 198 noted the failure of the plaintiff to address the crucial question of when they became aware of the registered sale deeds and specified the exact date of such knowledge. The Supreme Court accordingly held that the plaintiff was hence prima facie barred by law and the plaintiffs cannot reignite their rights after sleeping for a considerable period of time. Thus, the decisions relied upon by the respondent/defendant reiterate that the plaintiff is under a statutory obligation to plead the exact date of knowledge of the registered instruments of which cancellation is sought. 29. In the present case, the plaint failed to disclose any cause of action altogether in view of the respondent having succeeded up to the Supreme Court and the plaintiff having filed the Suit in 2022 in respect of the land having the same survey number. Hence, the cases cited on behalf of the appellant do not come to his rescue. 30. Hence, the cases cited on behalf of the appellant do not come to his rescue. 30. As stated above, the plaintiff sought for rectification of the Sale Deed dating back to 08.07.1980 and failed to provide any explanation as to why Articles 58 and 59 of The Limitation Act, 1963 will not apply to the present case in terms of seeking declaration and rectification as would be indicated in the prayers in the plaint. 31. Thus, we do not find any error in the impugned order by which the application of the respondent No.1 was allowed and the plaint in O.S.No.1064 of 2022 was rejected. Although a few of the other reasons given by the Trial Court including the right of the plaintiff to seek permanent injunction is not relevant to the issue, we find the ultimate conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court to be correct. We agree with the primary finding that rectification of registered instruments of 1980, 1987, 2008 and 2015 cannot be sought for in a Suit filed in 2022. We thus find that the Trial Court correctly decided the IA for rejection of plaint as the plaintiff did not have a cause of action to file the suit in 2022 and the Suit was barred by limitation. We hence find no merit in the Appeal Suit. 32. A.S.No.416 of 2025, along with all connected applications, is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.