Disposed

Poonam Singh v. Vaishali Singh and Another

Allahabad HC5 Jan 2026A227/7159/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought Article 227 relief against rejection of her Order 7 Rule 11 CPC application seeking rejection of a plaint challenging a registered gift deed as barred by limitation. The High Court issued notice to respondents, allowed affidavits, stayed further proceedings of R.S. No. 169/2020 till next listing, and deferred detailed consideration.

What the court decided

AI extract

Poonam Singh vs Vaishali Singh and Another — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7159 of 2025

¶3

Poonam Singh

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Vaishali Singh And Another	.....Respo
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Ashish Chaturvedi
Counsel for Respondent(s)	:

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Court No. - 17

¶9

HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

¶10

Heard Sri Ashish Chaturvedi, the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶11

By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 09.08.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Raebareli in R.S. No. 169/2020 whereby the petitioner's application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been rejected. The petitioner had challenged validity of the aforesaid order by filing Civil Revision No. 35/2023, which was dismissed by means of a judgment and order dated 19.11.2025 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Raebareli in Civil Revision No. 35/2023 and validity of the revisional order has also been assailed by the petitioner.

¶12

The aforesaid suit was filed by the opposite party no. 1 against the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2-Sri Kamlesh Kumar Singh, for a declaration that a registered gift deed executed by the opposite parties in favour of the petitioner on 03.10.2011, is null and void and she prayed for a consequential injunction restraining the parties from interfering in possession of the plaintiff over the land in dispute.

¶13

It was inter alia pleaded in the plaint that the gift deed was got executed by deceit and it has not been acted upon as possession has not been handed over in furtherance of the lease deed and mutation has also not been carried out in revenue records.

¶14

The petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint stating that the gift deed in question was executed on 03.10.2011 and it was registered on 04.10.2011. The limitation period for filing a suit for cancellation/ declaration of nullity of a gift deed is 3 years. Therefore, the suit is barred by the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC. It was also stated in the application that ad valorem court fee

¶15

A227 No. 7159 of 2025

¶16

¶17

is payable on the suit which has not been paid.

¶18

The opposite party no. 1 filed objections against the application but she did not give any specific reply to the grounds raised in the application that the suit is barred by the period of limitation.

¶19

The trial court rejected the application by means of the impugned order dated 09.08.2023 stating that the cause of action is said to have accrued on 20.07.2020, when the defendants tried to dispossess the petitioner from the property in dispute.

¶20

This order has been affirmed in the revision.

¶21

The petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit inter alia stating that upon execution of the gift deed dated 03.10.2011, the petitioner was put in possession of the property. In the year 2017, she took a housing loan from Punjab National Bank and constructed a building on the property gifted to her. The gift deed was executed by the opposite parties without any fraud or coercion and the opposite party no. 2 has filed a written statement admitting the validity of the gift deed.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramti Devi (Smt.) v. Union of Inida, (1995) 1 SCC 198, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that cause of action for seeking a declaration regarding nullity of a registered deed commences on the date of registration of the instrument.

¶23

He has also relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raghwendra Sharan Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singh (dead) by Legal Representatives , (2020) 16 SCC 601 (para-7), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has allowed an appeal filed against the rejection of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC which was affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where the suit is barred by the period of limitation, application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC deserves to be allowed.

¶24

The matter requires detailed consideration.

¶25

Issue notice to the opposite parties returnable at an early date.

¶26

The opposite parties may file counter affidavit within four weeks. The petitioner may file rejoinder affidavit within two weeks thereafter.

¶27

List in the week commencing 09.03.2026.

¶28

Keeping in view the aforesaid submissions, as an interim measure it is provided that till the next date of listing, proceedings of R.S. No.

¶29

A227 No. 7159 of 2025

¶30

¶31

169/2020 titled Poonam Singh v. Vaishali Singh & Anr. pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Raebareli shall remain stayed.

¶32

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶33

January 5, 2026

¶34

Pradeep/-

¶35

Digitally signed by :- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Poonam Singh v. Vaishali Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Poonam Singh v. Vaishali Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

C/M Smt. Awadhraji Ram Lallan Inter College Madaha Thru. Manager Durga Prasad Mishra and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Lko and 4 Others

Ikram-Ul- Haq Memorial Trust Thru. Authorized Signatory Sri Shahbaz Shahab vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Technical Edu. Lko. and 3 Others

Virendra Institute of Professional Studies Thru. Authorized Signatory Ramesh Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Technical Education Lko. and Another

M/S Rosebud Realcon LLP Ltd., Lko. Thru. Designated Partner Shri Naresh Jain vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and Others

C/M Society Shri Krishna Uchchatar Madhyamik Viddyalaya Thru. Managar Smt.Sanyogita and Another vs Assistant Registrar,Firms,Societies and Chits,Prayagraj and Another

Suprabha Industries Ltd., Lko. Thru. Authorized Person Rajendra Prasad Maurya vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Financial, Delhi and Others