JUDGMENT : P.B.BAJANTHRI, The plaintiff/appellant has presented this appeal questioning the validity of the Order dated 24.04.2013 passed on I.A.No.4 filed under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC in O.S.No.159/2010 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Belagavi. 2. For the purpose of convenience, parties are referred as plaintiff and defendant respectively. 3. The plaintiff and defendant are brothers. Defendant is the elder brother. They are the sons of propositus Siddalingappa Virupaxappa Jevoor. The propositus Siddalingappa Virupaxappa Jevoor was an officer in the Education Department, Government of Karnataka and after his retirement, he was a consultant. While he died intestate, joint family properties were inherited by plaintiff and defendant from their predecessor (father) i.e., three vacant plots, namely, plot No.15 in RS No.205 (CTS No.5214), plot No.169 in RS No.109/1 situated at Kangrali BK and plot No.40 in RS No.203/3 situated at Kundwad, Tq. And Dist.Davangere. 4. Plaintiff filed O.S.No.183/1997 seeking for partition and possession. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, the plaintiff entered into compromise with the defendant before the Lok Adalath and agreed to allot 1/5th share to the plaintiff. Such compromise petition filed before the Lok Adalath was alleged to be due to coercion and compulsion on the plaintiff. Thus, feeling aggrieved, plaintiff questioned the validity of the compromise partition in O.S.No.99/2006. The suit was decreed holding that the partition by compromise as null and void and not binding on the parties. Thus, the suit properties were kept in common among the plaintiff and defendant. 5. In this backdrop, on 15.12.2006, a partition deed was registered, for which both the plaintiff and defendant are parties and they are signatories to the documents. The plaintiff raised an issue that he was not aware of the partition deed dated 15.12.2006 till last week of June, 2010. The plaintiff requested the defendant not to alienate the suit properties. When the defendant did not heed to the plaintiff’s request, plaintiff was compelled to file O.S.No.159/2010, wherein he sought for declaration that partition deed dated 15.12.2006 is null and void and further sought for grant of his share in the suit schedule properties by way of partition and separate possession. The trial Court granted interim injunction. The defendant filed a written statement on 24.01.2011. The trial Court framed issues and proceeded for trial. The plaintiff got himself examined as PW1 and further stage was cross-examination. 6. The trial Court granted interim injunction. The defendant filed a written statement on 24.01.2011. The trial Court framed issues and proceeded for trial. The plaintiff got himself examined as PW1 and further stage was cross-examination. 6. When things stood thus, the defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC with a prayer to reject the plaint, as the suit is barred by limitation. The trial Court after hearing the aforesaid application proceeded to allow I.A.No.4 filed under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC. Feeling aggrieved and being dissatisfied with the Order of the trial Court dated 24.04.2013, passed on I.A.No.4, the present appeal is preferred by the plaintiff. 7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff vehemently contended that the trial Court manifestly erred in deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC based on the averments contained in the written statement and the evidence, though it is now well settled that while considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC, only the averments of the plaint should be considered. The plaintiff was not aware of the partition deed dated 15.12.2006 till the last week of June, 2010. He is deaf and dumb. The defendant has mislead the plaintiff in getting registered the partition deed dated 15.12.2006. The defendant has not apprised the contents of partition deed prior to June 2010. Further, the trial Court has erred in not appreciating the date of cause of action to the plaintiff i.e., from the date of knowledge of the partition deed in the last week of June, 2010. If the cause of action read with knowledge of the registered partition deed dated 15.12.2006 is taken into consideration, the suit is within the time limit. Further, the trial Court has erred in not framing issue relating to limitation, so also the trial Court cannot travel beyond the contents of the plaint while considering the application under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendant resisted the contentions of the plaintiff. The suit is barred by limitation. The plaintiff was party to the registered partition deed dated 15.12.2006. He is one of the signatories to the registered partition deed. No doubt the plaintiff is deaf and dumb person and at the same time one cannot ignore of the fact that he is literate and working in the Canara Bank as a clerk-cum-cashier. The plaintiff was party to the registered partition deed dated 15.12.2006. He is one of the signatories to the registered partition deed. No doubt the plaintiff is deaf and dumb person and at the same time one cannot ignore of the fact that he is literate and working in the Canara Bank as a clerk-cum-cashier. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot contend that he is not aware of the registered partition deed dated 15.12.2006 and he had the knowledge of the said deed only in the last week of June, 2010, when he was signatory to the said registered document. It was further contended that, having regard to the conduct of the plaintiff that he had entered into compromise before the Lok Adalath in O.S.No.183/1997 and no doubt the said compromise petition was being held null and void in O.S.No.99/2006, the plaintiff cannot take undue advantage of his deaf and dumbness to contend that he was mislead by the defendant. The trial Court has not committed any error as contended by the plaintiff while rejecting I.A.No.4 filed under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC filed by the defendant. The contents of the plaint has been taken into consideration and the trial Court has not traveled beyond the contents of the plaint. The trial Court took note of Article 59 of the Limitation Act, which restricts the time to obtain declaration to three years from the date of knowledge read with Section 3 of the Limitation Act. Thus, the plaintiff has not made out a case so as to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court dated 24.04.2013. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 10. The core issue in the present appeal is whether the trial Court has committed an error in allowing I.A.No.4 filed under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC to reject the plaint of the plaintiff on the ground of limitation or not? 11. The plaintiff in his plaint averred at para 4 as follows: “4. The cause of action for filing this suit arouse when the deed of partition registered on 15.12.2006 but the plaintiff was not having knowledge regarding the contents of partition deed till last week of June 2010. 11. The plaintiff in his plaint averred at para 4 as follows: “4. The cause of action for filing this suit arouse when the deed of partition registered on 15.12.2006 but the plaintiff was not having knowledge regarding the contents of partition deed till last week of June 2010. In the last week of June 2010 the defendant tried to alienate the suit properties without the consent of the plaintiff and then the plaintiff made reasonable enquiry and was shocked to know that the properties which were kept in common as per the decree in OS No.99/2006 were clandestinely allotted to the defendant to his share under the deed of partition dated 15.12.2006. The plaintiff requested the defendant not to illegally alienate and thereby dispossess the plaintiff from the joint possession of the suit properties but the defendant is not in a mood to heed to the request of the plaintiff and therefore the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit.” 12. Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 reads as under: PART IV – SUITS RELATING TO DECREES AND INSTRUMENTS Description of suit Period of limitation Time from which period begins to run 59. To cancel or set aside an instrument or decree or for the rescission of a contract Three years When the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument or decree cancelled or set aside or the contract rescinded first become known to him 13. In the light of the above provisions read with the factual aspects viz., registered partition dated 15.12.2006 and plaintiff’s contention that he had knowledge of partition deed only in the last week of June, 2010 and the fact that he was one of the signatories to the partition deed and filing of suit in the year 2010, the plaint is barred by limitation. 14. The undisputed facts are that, the propositus Sri. Siddalingappa Virupaxappa Jevoor died intestate. He had purchased vacant plot bearing No.15 in RS No.205 (CTS No.5214), vacant plot No.169 in RS No.109/1 situated at Kangrali BK and plot No.40 in RS No.203/3 situated at Kundwad, Tq. And Dist.Davangere. Plaintiff had filed O.S.No.183/1997 for partition and separate possession. It was compromised and later it was the subject matter of O.S.No.99/2006. The suit was decreed holding the partition by compromise as null and void and not binding on the parties. Thereafter, the parties have registered the partition deed on 15.12.2006. And Dist.Davangere. Plaintiff had filed O.S.No.183/1997 for partition and separate possession. It was compromised and later it was the subject matter of O.S.No.99/2006. The suit was decreed holding the partition by compromise as null and void and not binding on the parties. Thereafter, the parties have registered the partition deed on 15.12.2006. The plaintiff presented O.S.No.159/2010, disputing the registered partition deed dated 15.12.2006. The defendant has filed an application in I.A.No.4 under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC to reject the plaint. 15. In this backdrop, the trial Court proceeded to allow I.A.No.4 on 24.04.2013. The question for consideration is whether the plaintiff’s suit bearing O.S.No.159/2010 is barred by limitation or not? 16. The plaintiff’s contention that he had the knowledge of registered partition deed dated 15.12.2006 only in the last week of June, 2010 is untenable for the reason that he was one of the signatories to the registered partition deed. He is a literate person, who was working as a clerk cum cashier in the Canara Bank. Therefore, he cannot take undue advantage that he is deaf and dumb. The plaintiff also cannot take contention that there is coercion or compulsion to be a party to the registered partition deed dated 15.12.2006. If it was really with coercion or compulsion to be a party to the registered partition deed dated 15.12.2006, in such an event, the plaintiff should have raised the dispute immediately after registration of partition deed dated 15.12.2006. He was silent till last week of June, 2010. The conduct of the plaintiff is required to be taken note of that he has slept over his right, if he is really aggrieved by the registered partition deed dated 15.12.2006, he should have approached the court at the earliest. Moreover, it is not that partition deed was registered beyond the back of the petitioner or that fraud was committed on plaintiff by the defendant in forging signature of the plaintiff. In fact plaintiff was signatory to the registered partition deed and he has not disputed his signature. The trial Court has not traveled beyond the plaint in allowing the I.A.No.4 under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC as contended by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also contended that the defendant played fraud on him, as he was not apprised about the contents of the partition deed dated 15.12.2006. The trial Court has not traveled beyond the plaint in allowing the I.A.No.4 under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC as contended by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also contended that the defendant played fraud on him, as he was not apprised about the contents of the partition deed dated 15.12.2006. If the plaintiff had any doubt about the document as he had stated to have suffered on earlier occasion, he should have been alert and sought appropriate opinion from the elderly persons, who had the knowledge of partition deeds. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant has played fraud is not tenable. 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madanuri Sri. Rama Chandra Murthy Vs. Syed Jalal reported in (2017) 3 SCC 174, held as under: “7. The plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 if conditions enumerated in the said provision are fulfilled. It is needless to observe that the power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC can be exercised by the Court at any stage of the suit. The relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding the application are the averments of the plaint only. If on an entire and meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing any right to sue, the court should exercise power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Since the power conferred on the Court to terminate civil action at the threshold is drastic, the conditions enumerated under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC to the exercise of power of rejection of plaint have to be strictly adhered to. The averments of the plaint have to be read as a whole to find out whether the averments disclose a cause of action or whether the suit is barred by any law. It is needless to observe that the question as to whether the suit is barred by any law, would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The averments in the written statement as well as the contentions of the defendant are wholly immaterial while considering the prayer of the defendant for rejection of the plaint. It is needless to observe that the question as to whether the suit is barred by any law, would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The averments in the written statement as well as the contentions of the defendant are wholly immaterial while considering the prayer of the defendant for rejection of the plaint. Even when the allegations made in the plaint are taken to be correct as a whole on their face value, if they show that the suit is barred by any law, or do not disclose cause of action, the application for rejection of plaint can be entertained and the power under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC can be exercised. If clever drafting of the plaint has created the illusion of a cause of action, the court will nip it in the bud at the earliest so that bogus litigation will end at the earlier stage.” 18. In view of these facts and circumstances, the trial Court has not committed any manifest error in allowing I.A.No.4 filed under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC and rejecting the plaint and dismissing the suit as barred by limitation. The plaintiff has not made out a case so as to interfere with the trial Court’s order dated 24.04.2013 passed on I.A.No.4. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.