ORDER : V. SRISHANANDA, J. Heard Sri.A.Madhusudhana Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Shivashankar K., learned counsel for respondent. 2. Defendants are the revision petitioners challenging the validity of the order passed in O.S.No.94/2019 dated 16.12.2022 in dismissing the application filed by the defendants under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘CPC’ for short). 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: 3.1. A suit came to be filed in O.S.No.94/2019 with the following prayer in the respect of the following immovable property: PRAYER “Wherefore, the plaintiff respectfully pray that this Hon’ble Court be pleased: a. To declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. b. To declare that the sale deed dated 17.10.1998 which was executed by one Muniyellappa in favour of father of the 1 st defendant is not binding on the plaintiff. c. To declare that the Will deed dated 05.08.2014 which was executed by father of the 1 st defendant in favour of 2 nd defendant in respect of the suit schedule property is not binding on the plaintiff. d. To pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants either acting by themselves or through their agents, power of Attorney holders, representatives or assigns etc. from interfering with the plaintiff peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. e. To pass any other order/s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case including the costs of the proceedings. SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel of the property bearing Old Sy.No.12, new No.239, measuring to an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas of land situated at Kannurahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Hosakote Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District bounded on: Direction Description East Property of Gangappa West Property of Bhovi Muniyappa North Government Kaluve South Private property 3.2. Plaintiff claims that he is the owner of the property by virtue of the grant made by the State Government in his favour. 3.3. It is also contended that defendants have no manner of rights but by alleged transfer of revenue entries without there being any right, they started interfering with the property based on the sale deed as well as the Will. 3.4. 3.3. It is also contended that defendants have no manner of rights but by alleged transfer of revenue entries without there being any right, they started interfering with the property based on the sale deed as well as the Will. 3.4. A Will said to have been executed on 08.05.2014 by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 in respect of the suit property. 3.5. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendant entered appearance and filed written statement denying the plaint averments and specifically contending that plaint contains wrong statement on the factual aspects as well. 3.6. An application is also filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC to reject the plaint on the ground that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation in view of the fact that the sale deed executed in the year 1998 is sought to be assailed in the year 2019 and therefore, the suit is per se barred by limitation. 4. Learned Trial Judge after entertaining the objections of the plaintiff, dismissed the application filed by the defendants by impugned order. 5. Same is called in question by the defendants in this revision petition. 6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, contented that per se the suit is barred by limitation in view of the fact that the sale deed came to be executed in the year 1998, which is sought to be declared as null and void by filing a suit in the year 2019. 7. He would further emphasize that Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act makes it clear that there is a constructive notice of a registered document. Therefore, plaintiff pleading in paragraph Nos.12 and 14 with regard to the cause of action to the suit is incorrect and therefore, sought for allowing the revision petition. 8. In support of his arguments, he places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi and Others v. Anand Kumar and Others reported in (2025) 5 SCC 198 wherein his Lordship in paragraph No.13 while referring to the earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Suraj Lamps and Industries (P) Ltd. V. State of Haryana reported in (2009) 7 SCC 363 has held as under: “13. A registered document provides a complete account of a transaction to any party interested in the property. This Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. (2) v. State of Haryana [Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. (2) v. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 656 : (2012) 1 SCC (Civ) 351 : (2012) 169 Comp Cas 133 : (2012) 340 ITR 1 ] held as under : (SCC pp. 664-65, para 15) “15. … ‘17. … Registration of a document [when it is required by law to be, and has been effected by a registered instrument] [Ed. : Section 3 Explanation I TPA, reads as follows:“S. 3 Expln. I—Where any transaction relating to immovable property is required by law to be and has been effected by a registered instrument, any person acquiring such property or any part of, or share or interest in, such property shall be deemed to have notice of such instrument as from the date of registration….”(emphasis supplied)]] gives notice to the world that such a document has been executed. 18. Registration provides safety and security to transactions relating to immovable property, even if the document is lost or destroyed. It gives publicity and public exposure to documents thereby preventing forgeries and frauds in regard to transactions and execution of documents. Registration provides information to people who may deal with a property, as to the nature and extent of the rights which persons may have, affecting that property. In other words, it enables people to find out whether any particular property with which they are concerned, has been subjected to any legal obligation or liability and who is or are the person(s) presently having right, title, and interest in the property. It gives solemnity of form and perpetuate documents which are of legal importance or relevance by recording them, where people may see the record and enquire and ascertain what the particulars are and as far as land is concerned what obligations exist with regard to them. It ensures that every person dealing with immovable property can rely with confidence upon the statements contained in the registers (maintained under the said Act) as a full and complete account of all transactions by which the title to the property may be affected and secure extracts/copies duly certified.’ [Ed. It ensures that every person dealing with immovable property can rely with confidence upon the statements contained in the registers (maintained under the said Act) as a full and complete account of all transactions by which the title to the property may be affected and secure extracts/copies duly certified.’ [Ed. : As observed in Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. (1) v. State of Haryana, (2009) 7 SCC 363 , pp. 367-68, paras 17-18.] ” 9. He would further contend that in view of the authoritative principles of law enunciated in the aforesaid judgment; the approach of the Trial Court in dismissing the application has resulted in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision of the petition. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order. 11. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the metal on record meticulously. 12. On such perusal of the metal on record, his Court intends to cull out paragraph Nos.12 and 14 of the plaint which reads as under: “12. It is submitted that plaintiff is the original grantee in respect of the suit schedule property and he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and 1st defendant father, 1st and 2nd Defendants in collusion with some 3rd parties created the documents and the sale transaction was made in respect of the exclusive property of the plaintiff without his knowledge, taking advantage of his illiteracy and innocence and lack of knowledge. Recently plaintiff came to know all the illegal transactions and entries transpired form 1998-99 till 2014-15, therefore iminediately after brought to the knowledge of the same, plaintiff has constrained to file the suit. Further 1st defendant father, 1st and 2nd Defendants are very rich persons and they are residents of Andhra Pradesh and huge properties have been purchased only with an intention to form a layout and to sell properties in the form of sites, therefore at any moment they may alienate the properties in favour of 3rd parties, therefore this suit has been filed in view of urgency to restrain the defendants 12 not to alienate the property. 14. 14. The cause of action arose for the above suit recently in the month of October 2018 when he came to the knowledge of fraud played by the 1st defendant father, 1st and 2nd Defendants in colluding with some 3rd parties in creating the documents and purchase the suit schedule property without the knowledge of the plaintiff and thereafter 1st defendant father, 1st and 2nd Defendants are trying to sell the suit schedule property in the form of sites which are all comes well within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.” 13. On careful reading of the above paragraphs, no doubt there is a sale deed of the year 1998 executed on 17.10.1998 by Muniyellappa, who claims to be the real and absolute owner of the suit property in favour of Veguru Masthan Reddy. In the plaint, defendant No.1 is shown as son of Veguru Masthan Reddy. 14. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that defendant No.1 is not the son of Veguru Masthan Reddy. Based on the Will executed by Veguru Masthan Reddy in favour of K. Sudharkar Reddy, defendants maintained that they are the owners of the suit property. 15. In the case on hand, when the plaintiff is contending that he is the absolute owner of the suit property by virtue of the grant made by the State Government and has placed on record the materials to prima facie establish that he is the grantee in respect of the suit property land, the question arises whether the Muniyellappa was the owner of the suit property or not so as to hold that defendants are the absolute owners of the suit property. 16. If Muniyellappa is not the owner of the suit property as is contended by the plaintiff, then the sale deed executed by Muniyellappa in favour of Veguru Masthan Reddy will not have any value at all. 17. These are all the disputed questions which needs to be decided in the trial by directing the parties to place necessary evidence on record. 18. This is not a case where by mathematical precession; Courts would reach a conclusion that the suit is per se barred by limitation in view of the aforesaid disputed questions. 19. 17. These are all the disputed questions which needs to be decided in the trial by directing the parties to place necessary evidence on record. 18. This is not a case where by mathematical precession; Courts would reach a conclusion that the suit is per se barred by limitation in view of the aforesaid disputed questions. 19. Therefore, while there is no dispute with regard to the principles of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi supra, having regard to the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that question of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts in the case on hand. 20. Therefore, present revision petition needs to be dismissed. 21. Having said thus, necessarily an issue needs to be raised by the Trial Court in view of the rival pleadings as to the question of limitation and if not already raised, defendants are at liberty to file an application under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC with regard to limitation and same shall be dealt in accordance with law. 22. With the above direction, following: ORDER i. Revision petition is dismissed. ii. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and parties are at liberty to urge the same in accordance with law.