Service Law – Class IV Appointment – Validity of Appointments Beyond Advertised Vacancies – Rule 12, U.P. Rules – “Reasonable Dimension” of Waiting List – Appellants appointed against Class IV posts were terminated in 2008 on the ground that appointments exceeded notified vacancies – Advertisement of 2000 mentioned 12 vacancies “subject to increase or decrease” – Court held that Rule 12 permits maintenance of a waiting list of reasonable dimension to fill vacancies arising within the same or succeeding recruitment year – Reliance placed on Naseem Ahmad v. State of U.P., (2011) 2 SCC 734 – Held, appointments made from such waiting list were valid when vacancies arose subsequently – Termination unjustified [Paras 6–10].

Service Jurisprudence – Delay and Relief – Equitable Directions – Appellants were out of employment for 17 years – Two appellants had crossed superannuation age – Court directed reappointment of those still within age limit to existing or supernumerary posts in Ambedkar Nagar Judgeship – Those who crossed superannuation to be granted minimum pension – Intervening period not to count for seniority or pension computation – Directions confined to peculiar facts and not to be treated as precedent [Paras 11–12].

Interpretation of Rules – Rule 12, U.P. Rules – “Reasonable Dimension” – Expression construed to mean a waiting list adequate to cover vacancies likely to arise within the year of recruitment or the next year, in reasonable proportion to advertised vacancies – Ensures fairness and prevents arbitrariness in recruitment [Para 7].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Termination orders set aside – Reappointment or pension benefits granted as per directions – Relief restricted to appellants – Not to be treated as precedent [Paras 11–12].

Civil Writ - Transgender Rights – Indirect horizontality – Omissive discrimination – Reasonable accommodation – Private school recruitment – Second School denied employment after disclosure of gender identity; violation of Arts. 14, 15, 21 and ss. 3, 9 of 2019 Act – First School’s intentional discrimination not proved though grievance redressal deficient – Public law compensation under Art. 32 awarded against Union, States and private school – Article 142 directions: Welfare Boards, Protection Cells, Complaint Officers, SHRC as appeal forum, national helpline, 3-month compliance – Expert Advisory Committee constituted with funding and timelines – Continuing mandamus issued [Paras 150–163, 165–177, 199–200, 201–213, 214–221].

Transgender Rights – Horizontal Application – Omissive Discrimination – Reasonable Accommodation – Employment Discrimination – Public Law Compensation – Structural Directions under Art. 142 – Advisory Committee – Continuing Mandamus – The 2019 Act operationalises indirect horizontality by imposing non-discrimination and accommodation duties on “establishments” including private unaided schools – State inaction in enforcing grievance redressal and equal opportunity obligations amounts to omissive discrimination – Second School’s refusal to appoint after discovering petitioner’s transgender identity held discriminatory; First School’s conduct not proved as intentional discrimination though deficient in redressal – Public law compensation awarded against State actors and the Second School – Comprehensive directions issued to set up Welfare Boards, Protection Cells, Complaint Officers, an appeal forum (SHRC), and a national helpline; Expert Advisory Committee constituted with timelines and funding – Continuing mandamus issued [Paras 131–146, 150–163, 165–177, 178–213, 199–200, 214–221].

Equality & Non-Discrimination – Articles 14, 15 & 21 – “Sex” includes gender identity – The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 (“2019 Act”) extends constitutional guarantees to private spheres through Section 3 (broad non-discrimination) and Section 9 (employment) with Rule 12 (equal opportunity policy) and Section 11/Rule 13 (Complaint Officer & timelines) – Held: Act manifests indirect horizontal effect; failure to operationalise framework violates substantive equality and dignity [Paras 29–35, 39–42, 131–146].

Reasonable Accommodation – Positive obligation inherent in substantive equality – Though explicit in disability law (RPwD Act), it applies to transgender persons to remove structural barriers; undue hardship is the limiting standard – Indian jurisprudence (NALSA; Vikash Kumar; Kabir Paharia) and comparative materials (Canada/US/EU) relied upon [Paras 43–65, 48–55].

Omissive Discrimination – Legislative/administrative omission – Absolute and relative legislative omissions recognised; failure to establish mechanisms under the 2019 Act/2020 Rules (e.g., Complaint Officers, Protection Cells, policy under Rule 11) breaches equality code; courts may fill vacuums to the extent necessary (Vishaka line) [Paras 66–86, 115–130].

Stereotypes, Stigma & Substantive Equality – Anti-stereotyping principle reiterated; popular morality yields to constitutional morality (Navtej; Sabarimala; Babita Puniya; Nitisha; X2) – Formal neutrality that entrenches disadvantage is impermissible [Paras 88–96].

Employment Discrimination – First School v. Second School – First School: record showed accommodation efforts (hostel/washroom access; re-hire test), no intentional discrimination proved though handling of harassment inadequate – lack of internal redressal noted [Paras 153–158]. Second School: denial of appointment after identity disclosure; Section 9 prohibits discrimination in recruitment; St. Mary’s distinguished; violation found [Paras 160–163].

Article 32 – Public Law Compensation – Maintainability against Private Parties in appropriate cases – Relief distinct from tort damages – Rudul Sah; Bhim Singh; Nilabati Behera; M.C. Mehta; Jeeja Ghosh; CERC followed/applied – Held: compensation payable by Second School (private) and by Union/States for omissions [Paras 165–173, 176–177].

Quantum – Compensation of ₹50,000 each directed from Union of India and two States (Respondents 1–3) and ₹50,000 from Second School (Respondent 4) – Total ₹2,00,000 to petitioner; payable within four weeks [Paras 177, 214( i–iii)].

Structural Shortcomings of 2019 Act – Identification documentation hurdles; lack of workable grievance architecture; absence of reasonable accommodation norms in practice; suggestions issued (gender-neutral toilets, confidentiality, inclusive forms, curricula, security screening, medical curriculum updates) [Paras 178–198].

Directions (Article 142) – Comprehensive Structural Directions (IMPLEMENTATION, MONITORING & POLICY) – HELD:

(i) Appellate authority under Rule 9 designated in every State/UT [Para 199(i)].

(ii) Welfare Boards for transgender persons under Rule 10(1) in every State/UT [Para 199(ii)].

(iii) Transgender Protection Cells at district (DM) and State (DGP) levels under Rule 11(5) in every State/UT [Para 199(iii)].

(iv) Every “establishment” to designate Complaint Officer under Section 11 and Rule 13(1) – States/UTs to ensure compliance [Para 199(iv)].

(v) SHRC designated as forum to hear objections/appeals against head of establishment’s decision under Rule 13(3) [Para 199(v)].

(vi) Dedicated nation-wide toll-free helpline to receive violations of the 2019 Act/2020 Rules and immediately alert Protection Cells – wider scope than Rule 13(5) mechanism [Para 199(vi)].

(vii) Union of India and States to ensure strict compliance with above directions within three months from judgment [Para 200].

(viii) Continuing mandamus – Union to ensure compliance in all States and report; matter to be relisted after six months with Committee report [Paras 218, 221].

Advisory Committee – Constitution, Funding & Timelines – Court constituted expert Advisory Committee chaired by Hon’ble Ms. Justice Asha Menon (Retd.) with trans-rights activists and experts; ex-officio Secretaries of key Ministries as advisory members; MoSJE to fund and provide logistics; initial ₹10,00,000 to be deposited with Registry in two weeks; Committee to submit report/model Equal Opportunity Policy within six months; Union to consider and bring its policy within three months thereafter [Paras 201–213, 215–217].

Registry/Communication – Circulation of judgment to all High Courts and State/Union authorities; relist after six months with policy draft/report [Paras 220–221].

Decision: Petition disposed of with directions – Discrimination by Second School established – Public law compensation of ₹2,00,000 awarded (₹50,000 each by Union and two States; ₹50,000 by Second School) – Comprehensive structural directions issued under Art. 142 – Advisory Committee constituted with timelines and funding – Continuing mandamus for compliance and monitoring [Paras 160–177, 199–221].

Service Law – Recruitment to Public Posts – Writ Jurisdiction – Maintainability – Dispute relating to recruitment of Graduate Primary Teachers in Karnataka – Challenge raised by married women candidates regarding rejection of caste-cum-income certificates issued in the name of parents instead of husbands – Held: High Court erred in entertaining writ petitions directly when efficacious alternative remedy before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) was available – KSAT is the competent forum for adjudication of service and recruitment disputes under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 – Constitution Bench ruling in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India applied – T.K. Rangarajan v. State of T.N. distinguished as an exceptional case invoking Article 142 – Division Bench rightly set aside Single Judge’s order and relegated parties to KSAT – Appeals dismissed – Interim orders made absolute [Paras 26-33, 35-39, 40-47, 49-50].

Maintainability – Writ under Articles 226 and 227 – When not maintainable – Availability of effective alternative remedy – Exceptions reiterated, namely (i) violation of fundamental rights, (ii) breach of natural justice, (iii) lack of jurisdiction, and (iv) challenge to vires of statute – None of these exceptions attracted in the present case, as the dispute concerns rejection of documents in a recruitment process – High Court not to act as court of first instance in such service matters [Paras 32-37].

Administrative Tribunals – Powers and Efficacy – KSAT vested with powers akin to High Court under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 – Empowered to grant interim relief including ex parte orders, review its decisions, punish for contempt, and regulate its own procedure – Karnataka Administrative Tribunal Rules prescribe six-month period for disposal – Hence, remedy before KSAT held to be effective, efficacious, and expeditious [Paras 38-46].

Public Employment – Provisional and Final Select Lists – Provisional list confers no vested right – Direction to act upon provisional list dated 18.11.2022 would create administrative uncertainty – Validity of final select list dated 08.03.2023 to be decided by KSAT – State’s refusal to revive provisional list upheld [Para 48].

Interim Protection – Supreme Court’s prior interim orders noticed – (i) 03.01.2024: Stay of High Court’s directions and keeping appointments under 08.03.2023 list in abeyance; (ii) 22.01.2024: Permitting 11,494 appointees to continue subject to outcome; 481 posts reserved for married women candidates; (iii) 04.10.2024: State allowed to fill remaining vacancies while keeping 500 posts reserved – All interim directions made absolute – 500 reserved posts to be filled as per KSAT’s final verdict [Paras 21(A)-(C), 49].

Recruitment – Facts and Background – Notification dated 21.03.2022 for 15,000 Graduate Primary Teacher posts; exams held on 21–22.05.2022; results declared 17.08.2022; provisional list issued 18.11.2022; dispute arose over validity of certificates of married women candidates – Single Judge’s order dated 30.01.2023 directing inclusion of such candidates – Division Bench judgment dated 12.10.2023 setting aside Single Judge’s order and relegating parties to KSAT – Supreme Court upholds Division Bench view and directs expeditious disposal [Paras 3-20, 47, 49-51].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Division Bench judgment affirmed – Matters relegated to Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal for final adjudication – Interim orders dated 03.01.2024, 22.01.2024, and 04.10.2024 made absolute – 500 reserved posts to abide KSAT’s final decision – Tribunal requested to decide within six months – Merits of eligibility and certificate issues left open [Paras 47, 49-51].

Constitutional Law – Power of High Court – Direction for CBI Investigation – Limits of Jurisdiction – High Court, while hearing an intra-court appeal against a Single Judge’s order in recruitment matters, converted the appeal into suo motu PIL and directed CBI to conduct a preliminary inquiry – Held: High Court exceeded its jurisdiction – Exercise of power to order CBI inquiry under Article 226 permissible only where sufficient material exists disclosing prima facie commission of offence – Power to be exercised sparingly, cautiously, and in exceptional circumstances where fairness of investigation or public confidence is at stake – No such material existed here – Directions unsustainable [Paras 9–14, 18–24].

Public Employment – Recruitment Irregularities – Challenge to selection process for various posts in Legislative Council and Assembly Secretariat of U.P. – Allegations of favoritism and manipulation by private recruiting agencies – Writ petitions contained no prayer for CBI inquiry – Division Bench acted suo motu without foundation or pleading – Held: Ordering CBI inquiry based on “doubts” or “assumptions” violates settled principles – Directions quashed [Paras 15–21, 23].

Judicial Review – Suo Motu Public Interest Litigation – Scope – High Court, while exercising appellate jurisdiction, could not convert pending special appeal into suo motu PIL – Such action not in consonance with rules or judicial propriety – Matter left to Chief Justice of High Court to examine procedure and registry’s action in this regard [Paras 18–19, 25].

CBI Inquiry – Principles Reiterated – Direction for CBI investigation to be last resort – Permissible only when: (i) prima facie material discloses cognizable offence, (ii) local police incapable of impartial probe, (iii) involvement of high-ranking officials or systemic failure, or (iv) case has national ramifications – Mere allegations or administrative irregularities do not justify CBI inquiry – High Court’s assumption-based approach deprecated [Paras 10–14, 21–23].

Recruitment Process – Role of Specialized Agency – Following Sachin Kumar v. DSSSB (2021) 4 SCC 631, Single Judge directed future Class III recruitments in U.P. Legislative Assembly/Council to be conducted by U.P. Subordinate Services Selection Commission and not private agencies – Division Bench should have confined adjudication to legality of that direction – CBI inquiry beyond pleadings and scope of appeal [Paras 3–5, 17, 24–25].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court’s orders dated 18.09.2023 and 03.10.2023 set aside – Direction for CBI preliminary inquiry and registration of suo motu PIL quashed – Division Bench requested to hear Special Appeal Defective No. 485 of 2023 on merits in accordance with law – No opinion on merits expressed – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 24–25].

Property Law – Agreement to Sell – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Whether agreement to sell executed during lifetime of deceased transfers ownership – Held: No – Agreement to sell does not create interest or title in immovable property; ownership transfers only upon execution and registration of sale deed – As no conveyance existed during lifetime, the property remained vested in deceased and formed part of matruka property – Reliance placed on Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. (2) v. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 656, and Rambhau Namdeo Gajre v. Narayan Bapuji Dhotra, (2004) 8 SCC 614 [Paras 7–10].

Mohammedan Law – Matruka Property – Definition and Devolution – “Matruka” means property (movable or immovable) left behind by a deceased Muslim – Held: Such property devolves first to satisfy debts and legacies (limited to one-third of estate) and remainder distributed among heirs as per Quranic injunctions and Mulla’s Principles – Wife being a sharer entitled to one-fourth share in absence of child or grandchild; balance devolves on residuaries – Cited Jamil Ahmad v. Vth ADJ, Moradabad, (2001) 8 SCC 599 and Trinity Infraventures Ltd. v. M.S. Murthy, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 738 [Paras 8–15].

Inheritance – Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet – Principle – Held: A person cannot transfer a better title than he possesses – Widow who held only one-fourth share could not convey ownership of entire estate – Sale deed executed beyond her legal share invalid to that extent [Para 15].

Civil Procedure – Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – When no substantial question of law arises, High Court must dismiss appeal in limine with reasons – Though High Court examined merits after so finding, no prejudice caused as conclusion consistent with law – Referred Surat Singh v. Siri Bhagwan, (2018) 4 SCC 562; Hasmat Ali v. Ameena Bibi, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1142 [Para 5].

Language of Judgments – Translation Quality – Observed with concern the poor translation of trial court judgment from vernacular to English – Emphasized need for accuracy since words and punctuation bear decisive legal implications – Concern earlier echoed in Chairman, Managing Committee v. Bhaveshkumar Manubhai Parakhia (Order dated 18.03.2025) [Para 17].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – View taken by First Appellate Court and High Court upheld – Property in question forms part of matruka property – Wife entitled to 1/4th share; remaining 3/4th to devolve per Mohammedan inheritance law – No interference warranted – No order as to costs [Paras 15–18].

Environmental Law – Firecrackers in Delhi–NCR – Temporary relaxation on “test case” basis – Supreme Court permits sale and use of only NEERI-approved green crackers at designated locations for a limited window (sale: 18–20 Oct 2025 – use: 6–7 AM & 8–10 PM on the day before and on Diwali) – Ban on barium-containing crackers, series/laris, e-commerce sales and inflow from outside NCR – Strict patrols, QR-code verification, random sampling, licence renewals for the limited period, and AQI/soil/water monitoring directed – Rationale: balance right to life and health with livelihood/festive interests; prior Delhi–NCR ban in 2024 distinguished as both GNCTD and Union now seek calibrated relaxation – Directions modelled on Arjun Gopal (2018) regime – Test-case relaxation only for specified period [Paras 1–4, 12–14, 18–24].

Right to Life vs. Profession – Court reiterates primacy of health and environment over commercial/festive considerations – While acknowledging cultural practice of bursting crackers, uncontrolled use cannot be permitted to cause short/long-term health damage – Balance struck via narrow relaxation with strict compliance and enforcement [Paras 1–3, 16–20].

Green Crackers – NEERI formulations – Court notes NEERI/CSIR work cutting particulate emissions by 30–80% through zeolites, water-releasing molecules, and metallic composites; barium banned in India and replaced by strontium/potassium – NEERI SOP for manufacturer registration, product-wise approvals, QR codes; concern over QR misuse flagged – Enforcement directed via testing and penal action for violations [Paras 12–13, 14(A)(i), 14(C)(iii)-(v), (vi)-(vii)].

Operational Directions – Sale only 18–20 Oct 2025 at locations identified by District Collectors/Commissioners with police/SPCB patrols – Use only two time slots on two days (pre-Diwali and Diwali) – Confiscation of non-approved products; prohibition on e-commerce; no series/laris; no inflow from outside NCR; renewal of expired/cancelled trader licences for stipulated period – CPCB/SPCBs to monitor AQI 14–25 Oct 2025 and collect soil/water samples; report to Court – Relaxation expressly on “test case” basis [Para 24(A)–(M)].

Earlier Ban & Data – 2024 complete ban by GNCTD (14.10.2024 to 01.01.2025) and its expansion to entire NCR (19.12.2024) noted; present relaxation sought by GNCTD and Union distinguishes current context – Court records that AQI differences between 2018 and 2024 were not substantial (except Covid period), supporting calibrated approach with stringent safeguards [Paras 11, 21, 23–24].

Decision: Limited, strictly regulated relaxation granted – Only NEERI-approved green crackers – Detailed enforcement, monitoring, and reporting mandated – Relaxation confined to specified days/hours and expressly on test-case basis; IAs to be listed after three weeks for further directions [Paras 24–25].

Land Acquisition – Market Value – Section 26 of the 2013 Act – Determination based on sale instances – Reference Court justified in enhancing compensation by applying statutory criteria – Six genuine sale deeds in vicinity produced by claimant; three highest-value transactions averaged as per Explanation 2 to Section 26(1)(b) – 10% annual escalation added to bring parity with acquisition year (2017) – Resultant market value ₹26,814 per sq. mtr. – High Court erred in restoring lower award ignoring statutory methodology – Enhanced compensation of ₹20.20 crore restored [Paras 24–27, 42].

Compensation – Unauthorised Possession by Public Authority – Claim for rental value – Held: Not maintainable – Records show possession and beneficial use of property remained with original owner and appellant till sale – No deprivation of use established – Rental/occupation damages payable only for unlawful possession prior to acquisition (ref. R.L. Jain v. DDA, (2004) 4 SCC 79) – Claim for rental compensation from 1972 to 2011 rejected [Paras 29–33, 39, 43].

Equitable Relief – Mesne Profits/Interest – Section 28 (Seventhly) of the 2013 Act permits equitable compensation “in the interest of justice and benefit to affected families” – Appellant entitled to interest at 8% per annum on purchase consideration of ₹1.17 crore from date of purchase (29.07.2011) till possession taken (08.05.2017) as mesne profits for deprivation of ownership during State’s occupation – Approach consistent with Shankarrao Bhagwantrao Patil v. State of Maharashtra, (2022) 15 SCC 657 [Paras 34–38, 44].

Assessment of Value – Ready Reckoner vs. Sale Instances – Preference – Statutory scheme mandates reliance on comparable sale deeds over ready reckoner rates unless sale data unavailable – Reference Court rightly preferred actual sale instances reflecting market realities over administrative rates [Paras 17–18, 26–27].

Judicial Conduct – Adverse Observations by High Court – Remarks against appellant pursuing statutory remedy held unjustified – Court expunges personal observations and sets aside costs of ₹10 lakh imposed by High Court [Paras 40–41, 45].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – High Court judgment dated 04.05.2023 set aside to extent of reducing compensation – Award of Reference Court dated 18.03.2021 restored granting total compensation of ₹20,20,11,533/- with interest at 9% p.a. for one year from 09.01.2017 and 15% p.a. thereafter till realization – Claim for rental compensation rejected – Appellant entitled to 8% interest on ₹1,17,00,000/- from 29.07.2011 to 08.05.2017 – Adverse observations and costs of ₹10 lakh expunged and waived – No order as to costs [Paras 42–47].

Service Law – Waiting List/Reserved Panel – Counsel’s Concession – High Court directed absorption on future SC vacancy relying on 15.01.1999 assurance – Held: Wait list is not a source of recruitment and operates only if a selected candidate does not join – A concession contrary to statutory Recruitment Rules is not binding; cannot be enforced to extend life of wait list or fill future vacancies – Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside [Paras 12–13, 15–18; 1997 process closed].

Waiting List – Nature and Operative Period – The Court reiterates that mere placement in a wait list/“Reserved Panel” confers no vested right; it operates only if a selected candidate does not join and cannot continue indefinitely or after a fresh recruitment begins – Reliance placed on Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers’ Assn. v. State of Gujarat (three-Judge Bench) – Held, respondent’s right as a waitlisted candidate extinguished when all three selected candidates joined in 1997 [Para 12].

Concession by Counsel – Not Binding if Contrary to Law/Rules – The 15.01.1999 statement that respondent would be “absorbed” against next SC vacancy could not override Recruitment Rules or revive a closed selection – Wrong concession on law by counsel is not binding on the client; Court refers to Uptron India Ltd. v. Shammi Bhan and Central Council for Research in Ayurveda & Siddha v. K. Santhakumari – Held, State can place correct legal position and decline to act on an erroneous concession that violates statutory Rules [Paras 15–16, 17].

Future Vacancies & Prejudice to Fresh Candidates – Giving effect to the 1999 concession would fill posts in subsequent recruitment from an earlier list, prejudicing new aspirants and impermissibly extending the life of the wait list – Hence, the High Court’s absorption direction is unsustainable [Para 17].

Facts – 1997 selection for three SC Technician posts; respondent placed first in Reserved Panel; all three selectees joined; multiple rounds before CAT/High Court; 2013 recruitment and interim “one post to be kept vacant” order; ultimate HC (25.06.2024) direction to absorb with notional effect from 19.07.2013 set aside [Paras 3–11].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Calcutta High Court’s judgment dated 25.06.2024 set aside – Writ petition dismissed – No order as to costs [Para 18].

Civil Procedure Code – Order 7 Rule 11(d) – Limitation – Mutation proceedings – Possession based on title – Suit for declaration and possession not ex facie barred where mutation proceedings culminated in 2017 and suit filed within three years – Limitation for possession 12 years under Article 65 – Declaratory right continuing – Rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) erroneous – Order 2 Rule 2 not attracted – High Court orders set aside; Trial Court’s order restored – [Paras 15–24].

Civil Procedure Code – Order 7 Rule 11(d) – Rejection of plaint – Limitation – High Court erred in rejecting plaint as barred by limitation – For deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d), only averments in the plaint are to be considered – Mutation proceedings are fiscal in nature and do not confer title – Plaint indicated that mutation proceedings culminated in 2017 and the suit filed in 2019 was within limitation – [Paras 15–17].

Limitation Act – Articles 58 & 65 – Possession based on title – Suit for possession based on title carries a limitation period of 12 years from the date possession becomes adverse – Declaratory relief in such cases is a continuing right – Held, limitation for possession to prevail; suit not ex facie barred – [Paras 17, 20].

Order 2 Rule 2 CPC – First suit of predecessor-in-interest rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 for being improperly framed – Fresh suit with appropriate relief not barred under Order 2 Rule 2 – [Para 22].

Mutation Proceedings – Mutation entries do not confer ownership rights but serve fiscal purposes; validity of will or title must be tested in civil proceedings – [Para 16].

Adverse Possession – Question whether defendants perfected title by adverse possession is a mixed question of law and fact—Cannot be basis for rejection of plaint at threshold—To be determined on evidence during trial – [Para 23].

Principle – When multiple reliefs are claimed, if any one relief is within limitation, plaint cannot be rejected as barred by law under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC – [Para 19].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Orders of the High Court dated 27.01.2022 and 04.07.2022 set aside – Order of the Trial Court rejecting application under Order 7 Rule 11 restored – Suit to proceed to trial on merits – [Para 23–24].