JUDGMENT 1. This appeal by the second defendant is directed against the judgment and decree dated September 27, 2014 in O.S. No. 7363/2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, FTC-VIII C/C 37TH Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, decreeing the suit for declaration and possession. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred as per their status before the Trial Court. 3. Brief facts of the case are, one Late A.P. Shankar (first defendant's husband and second defendant's father) was the owner of the suit Schedule Property. He sold it in favour of one Sayeeda Fathima under a Sale deed dated 12.04.1996. Immediately after execution of the Sale Deed, on the very same day, she leased the property in favour of A.P. Shankar. Subsequently, Sayeeda Fathima sold the suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff vide Sale Deed dated November 24, 1997. After purchasing the property, plaintiff filed a suit , [OS. No. 8108/1998] for possession and mesne profits against the defendants herein. In the said suit, defendants were placed ex-parte. However, the suit was dismissed holding that the suit was not maintainable and the plaintiff could seek remedy under the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act. Thereafter, plaintiff filed Eviction Petition , [HRC No. 178/2006] under the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 ('Rent Act' for short) and the same was allowed granting three months' time to the defendants herein, to vacate and handover the vacant possession. Defendants challenged the said order before this Court in H.R.R.P. No.8/2009. This Court allowed the said petition and dismissed eviction petition reserving liberty to the plaintiff to file appropriate proceedings under Section 27(r) of the Rent Act. Thereafter, plaintiff has filed the instant suit and the same has been decreed by the impugned judgment and decree. Hence, this appeal by the second defendant. 4. Plaintiff's case is, the suit schedule property is the self-acquired property of Late A.P. Shankar. He sold it to Sayeeda Fathima and she sold it to the plaintiff. Hence, plaintiff has acquired legal right and title over the property. After selling the property to Sayeeda Fathima, A.P. Shankar had remained in possession of the property, as a tenant. After his death, defendants continued in possession as tenants. The defendants have no manner of right, title and interest over the suit schedule property. Defendants are unauthorized occupants without any status. Defendants have also denied ownership of the plaintiff. After selling the property to Sayeeda Fathima, A.P. Shankar had remained in possession of the property, as a tenant. After his death, defendants continued in possession as tenants. The defendants have no manner of right, title and interest over the suit schedule property. Defendants are unauthorized occupants without any status. Defendants have also denied ownership of the plaintiff. With these averments, plaintiff brought the instant suit seeking relief of declaration, recovery of possession and mesne profits. 5. Defendants resisted the suit by filing written statement contending inter alia that the property bearing No.36 measuring 40 ft. X 60 ft. was allotted to one A.D. Parthasarathy (A.P. Shankar's father). He died intestate leaving behind his wife Andalamma, son A.P. Shankar and his wife (Sabitha Devi). After death of Parthasarathy, Andalamma's name was entered in the Khatha records. Thereafter, khatha entry was changed in the name of A.P. Shankar. Thus, the said property was a joint family property consisting of A.P. Shankar and his son Suresh Kumar (second defendant). In order to provide a suitable accommodation to his daughter Mahishavardhini [defendant No.1(a)], A.P. Shankar sold a portion of the property measuring 30 ft. x 40 ft. to one Ghouse Mohideen. In the remaining area of 30 ft. x 40 ft., a house and two shops were built and A.P. Shankar lived in that house with his family. 6. After selling a portion of the property in 1992, a dispute arose in the family and A.P. Shankar deserted his family members and starting living separately in Ganesh Cottage, situated in R.T. Nagar, Bengaluru. First defendant filed P.Mis. No.18/1995 seeking maintenance. She got a notice published in Deccan Herald Newspaper dated April 16, 1995 intimating the general public not to deal with the property. During the pendency of P.Mis. No.18/1995, A.P. Shankar had allegedly sold the property in favour of Sayeeda Fathima in 1996. Sayeeda Fathima sought to disposess the defendants from the suit schedule property and defendants filed O.S. No.6439/1996 contending inter alia that A.P. Shankar had no right over the property. The defendants therein, avoided summons and did not appear in the suit. 7. Sayeeda Fathima filed eviction petition against A.P. Shankar and eviction was ordered in collusion A.P. Shankar, who consented for an order of eviction against him. In the meanwhile, A.P. Shankar died on July 8, 1997. The defendants therein, avoided summons and did not appear in the suit. 7. Sayeeda Fathima filed eviction petition against A.P. Shankar and eviction was ordered in collusion A.P. Shankar, who consented for an order of eviction against him. In the meanwhile, A.P. Shankar died on July 8, 1997. Defendants resisted the execution proceedings, contending that the eviction order was obtained by collusion and fraud between A.P. Shankar and Sayeeda Fathima. Sayeeda Fathima unconditionally withdrew the execution petition. 8. It is the further case of the defendants that Sayeeda Fathima having realized that she had not derived any right, title and interest in the suit property, sold the same in favour of the plaintiff herein under a registered Sale Deed dated November 24, 1997. Sayeeda Fathima had allegedly purchased the property on April 12, 1996 when defendants were in possession of the suit property in their own right. Sayeeda Fathima filed H.R.C. No.10263/1996 and abandoned the execution proceedings. Therefore, the instant suit is hit by doctrine of res judicata in view of dismissal of earlier suit for eviction in O.S. No. 8108/1998. 9. Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court has framed following issues: 1. Does the plaintiff prove that the suit schedule property was self-acquired property of late A.P. Shankar as contended in the plaint? 2. Does the plaintiff prove that on 12/04/1996 said late A Shankar has sold the land in favour of Syeedafathima for valid consideration through a registered sale deed? 3. Does the plaintiff prove that on 24/11/1997 she has purchased the Suit Schedule Property from Syeeda Fathima for Valid consideration under a registered sale deed, so she has become the absolute owner of the same? 4. Does the plaintiff prove that the defendants are in unauthorized possession of the suit schedule property, so they are bound to deliver the vacant possession of the same? 5. Does the plaintiff prove that she is entitled for damages and mesne profit from the defendants with respect to the suit schedule property? 6. Does the defendants prove that the suit is not properly valued and court fee paid on the same is insufficient? 7. Does the defendants prove that the suit is barred by time? 8. Does the defendants prove that the suit is hit by the principles of Res-judicata in view of the decision passed in O.S.No.8108/1998 as contended in the written statement? 9. What order or decree? 10. 7. Does the defendants prove that the suit is barred by time? 8. Does the defendants prove that the suit is hit by the principles of Res-judicata in view of the decision passed in O.S.No.8108/1998 as contended in the written statement? 9. What order or decree? 10. On behalf of plaintiff, the plaintiff has been examined as PW-1 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9 have been marked. On behalf of defendants, defendant No. 2 has been examined as DW1 and Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.6 have been marked. 11. The learned Trial Judge has recorded in his judgment that issues No.6 and 8 were decided vide orders dated October 2, 2007 and June 2, 2012. Answering issues No. 1 to 5 in the affirmative and issue No. 7 in the negative, the Trial Court has decreed the suit. 12. Shri. Prasanna Kumar, learned Advocate for the appellant contended inter alia that: - in the Sale deed executed by Sayeeda Fathima in favour of plaintiff, the property conveyed measures 40 ft. x 29 ft. 3 inches. The schedule property in the plaint measures 23 ft. x 29 ft. 3 inches. Thus, the plaintiff has not sought for declaration in respect of the entire area of land purchased by her under the Sale Deed and such a suit is not maintainable; - no cause of action is mentioned in the plaint. Therefore, the plaint is not in consonance with Order VII Rule 1(e) of CPC. Hence, the suit is not maintainable; - plaintiff claims her title through Sayeeda Fathima. Admittedly, Sayeeda Fathima had initiated HRC proceedings in 1996. The present suit is filed in the year 2009, which is beyond 12 years and therefore, suit is liable to be dismissed in view of Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963. With these submissions, he prayed for allowing this appeal. 13. Opposing the appeal, Shri. Aruna Shyam, learned Senior Advocate inter alia contended that: - plaintiff has acquired the property on 24.11.1997 and suit has been filed on 18.11.2009 within the period of limitation; - even otherwise, plaintiff was agitating in the wrong forum and the said period is required to be excluded. In support of this contention, he relied upon Consolidated Engineering Enterprises Vs. In support of this contention, he relied upon Consolidated Engineering Enterprises Vs. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department and Others, (2008)7 SCC 169 (para 21); - defendant has not raised any plea with regard to limitation; - with regard to cause of action, he placed reliance on Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. and Others Vs. Owners & Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune Express and Others, (2006)3 SCC 100 (para 12) and Swamy Atmananda and Others Vs. Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam and Others, (2005)10 SCC 51 (paras 23 & 24). 14. With the above submissions, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 15. In the light of the pleadings and evidence on record, following points arise for our consideration: (a) Whether plaintiff is entitled for a declaration that she is the absolute owner of the suit property and if so, whether she is entitled for possession? (b) Whether the judgment and decree of Trial Court requires any interference? Re: Point No.1 16. Undisputed facts of the case are, Sayeeda Fathima claims to have purchased the property under a Sale Deed dated 12.04.1996. She filed H.R.C. No.10263/1996 and did not get the possession of the property. Further, she abandoned the execution proceedings. Plaintiff claims to have purchased the property from Sayeeda Fathima under a Sale deed dated November 24, 1997. Her suit seeking eviction in O.S. No.8108/1998 was dismissed. Later, she has filed HRC No.178/2006 and the same was allowed by the Trial Court, but dismissed by the High Court in H.R.R.P. No.8/2009. Thereafter, the present suit has been filed. 17. Thus, it is not in dispute that though Sayeeda Fathima purchased the property on 12.04.1996, she did not get the possession of the suit property. It was submitted by Shri. Prasanna Kumar that though the property purchased by Sayeeda Fathima measured 40 ft. x 29 ft. 3 inches, the suit schedule property measures only 23 ft. X 29 ft. 3 inches. He submitted that in the remaining area, there are two shops and they are in possession of the plaintiff. 18. Sayeeda Fathima filed eviction petition in HRC No.10263/1996. Though she obtained an order of eviction, she did not pursue it further and abandoned the execution proceedings. Plaintiff is seeking eviction based on title and on the strength of the Sale Deed executed by Sayeeda Fathima in her favour. 18. Sayeeda Fathima filed eviction petition in HRC No.10263/1996. Though she obtained an order of eviction, she did not pursue it further and abandoned the execution proceedings. Plaintiff is seeking eviction based on title and on the strength of the Sale Deed executed by Sayeeda Fathima in her favour. It is settled that the purchaser of property would get the same title and other privileges to which the vendor of the property would be entitled. Admittedly, Sayeeda Fathima purchased the property on 12.04.1996 and did not get the possession of the suit property. Reckoned from the date of purchase of the property by Sayeeda Fathima, the instant suit is presented after 13 years, 7 months and 6 days. 19. Appellant has pleaded in the appeal (para 9) and argued during the hearing that suit is barred by limitation. Under Article 65 of the Schedule in the Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation to file a suit seeking possession of immovable property based on title is 12 years, to be reckoned from the date on which defendants' possession becomes adverse to plaintiff. 20. Plaintiff had also filed O.S. No.8108/1998 seeking declaration and possession of the suit schedule property. It is averred in the plaint (paras 4 to 6) that plaintiff's husband was a tenant in respect of a shop measuring 11 ft. x 10 ft. and another shop of same measurement was in occupation of one Narayan, Proprietor of Classic Hair Dresser. It is further averred that Sayeeda Fathima had purchased the property under a Sale Deed dated 12.04.1996 and subsequently offered the same to the plaintiff and she had purchased the same. Thus, it is clear that plaintiff was having the knowledge that the entire property belong to A.P. Shankar and her husband was a tenant in a shop which was part of the entire property. She also had the knowledge that Sayeeda Fathima had purchased the property on 12.04.1996, but could not get the possession of the premises in the occupation of the defendants. 21. After dismissal of the said suit, plaintiff filed HRC No.178/2006 and the same was allowed. The Revision Petition , [HRRP No.8/2009 decided on 06.07.2009] filed by the defendants was allowed and the eviction petition was dismissed. 21. After dismissal of the said suit, plaintiff filed HRC No.178/2006 and the same was allowed. The Revision Petition , [HRRP No.8/2009 decided on 06.07.2009] filed by the defendants was allowed and the eviction petition was dismissed. This Court has recorded in H.R.R.P. No.8/2009 that the defendants had contested the proceedings on the footing that they were in occupation and possession of the property as owners and that there was no jural relationship of 'landlord and tenant' between the plaintiff and the defendant. 22. In the facts of this case, this appeal must succeed for more than one reason. Firstly, Sayeeda Fathima having purchased the property in 1996, had failed to get the possession of the suit schedule property. Plaintiff, P.W.1 has admitted in her cross-examination that she did not take possession of the entire property purchased by her as mentioned in the Sale Deed. As recorded hereinabove, the instant suit is filed after 13 years reckoned from the date of Sale Deed i.e., 12.04.1996 in favour of Sayeeda Fathima. Therefore, the suit is barred by limitation. 23. Secondly, no cause of action is mentioned in the plaint. 24. Thirdly, it is settled that when a suit is instituted after the prescribed period of limitation, it shall be dismissed although limitation has not been set up as a defence as held in various authorities including, Shanthi Conductors Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assam State Electricity Board and others, (2020)2 SCC 677 (para 14) relied upon by defendants. 25. Resultantly, this appeal merits consideration. Hence, the following: ORDER (a) Appeal is allowed. (b) Suit in O.S. No.7363/2009 on the file of XXXVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-38), Bangalore City is dismissed. No costs.