JUDGMENT : SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J. 1. This captioned appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiff, who has questioned the rejection of plaint by the trial Court exercising the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure . The trial Court rejected the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to make out a cause of action and also that plaint is barred by limitation. Rejection of the plaint is challenged by the unsuccessful plaintiff. 2. For the sake of brevity, parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 3. Although the plaintiff has not furnished a formal genealogical tree, a reading of the plaint averments reveals that the suit property was originally granted to one Mallappa, the propositus of the family. It is pleaded that Mallappa had three sons, namely, Ningappa, Hanumanthappa, and Ramaiah. The plaintiff claims to belong to the branch of Ningappa, who is said to be his grandfather. It is further stated that Ningappa had a son named Lingappa, and the plaintiff is the son of said Lingappa. Thus, the plaintiff asserts his lineage and co- parcenary interest in the suit property through the male line descending from the original grantee Mallappa. 4 . The suit has been instituted seeking the relief of partition and separate possession against defendants Nos.1 to 7, who are alleged to be in possession and control of the joint family ancestral properties. The plaintiff contends that despite repeated demands, the defendants have refused to effect partition. It is further alleged that the said defendants have unlawfully and without the consent of the plaintiff alienated portions of the suit schedule properties in favour of defendants Nos.8 to 19, thereby necessitating the present action. The plaintiff seeks to challenge the validity of these alienations and assert his share in the joint family properties. 5. Upon receipt of summons, the defendants entered appearance and proceeded to file an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) to (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure , seeking rejection of the plaint. The rejection was sought on the twin grounds that (i) the plaint does not disclose a cause of action and (ii) the suit is barred by limitation. 6. The rejection was sought on the twin grounds that (i) the plaint does not disclose a cause of action and (ii) the suit is barred by limitation. 6. The learned Trial Judge, upon a careful scrutiny of the reliefs claimed in the plaint and the material averments therein, allowed the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) to (d) of the CPC. The Court recorded a finding that the present suit lacks a foundational cause of action, inasmuch as the alienations sought to be challenged were made several decades earlier, and there was no explanation as to why the suit was not filed within the prescribed time. The learned Judge also took note of the fact that the plaintiff was seeking to assail sale deeds executed as far back as 1967, and applying Article 109 of the Limitation Act, 1963 , held that the claim was hopelessly barred. In exercise of the power under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, the Trial Court rejected the plaint at the threshold on the ground of limitation. The said order is now assailed in the present proceedings. 7. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has been heard at length in support of the challenge to the impugned order. The counsel contends that the Trial Court has erred in not appreciating the nature of the suit, the character of the properties, and the legal principles governing co-parcenary and partition rights. 8. Upon a comprehensive consideration of the submissions advanced and the pleadings in the plaint, the following points arise for determination in the present case: i) Whether the learned Trial Judge was justified in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that it discloses no cause of action and is barred by limitation? ii) Whether the impugned order of rejection of the plaint suffers from any legal infirmity warranting interference by this Court? FINDING ON POINT No.(i) 9. Before examining the validity of the order under challenge, this Court deems it fit to cull out the prayer column of the plaint The prayer reads as under: a) Decree the suit for partition directing the defendants to effect partition to an extent of 1/3 rd legitimate share to the plaintiff in the suit schedule property and put the plaintiff in separate possession of his share. b) To declare that the Registered Sale deed bearing No. 1944/1967-68, Book No.1 and Land Vol.No.652 at pages 204-206 dated 28/07/1967 is not binding on the Plaintiff share is concerned c) To declare that the Registered Sale deed bearing No.1945/1967-68, Vol. No. 654 at pages 41-43 dated 28/07/1967 is not binding on the Plaintiff share is concerned. d) To declare that the Registered Sale deed bearing No.2987/1968-69,, Vol. No 724 at pages 105-109 dated 18/09/1968 is not binding on the Plaintiff share is concerned. e) To declare that the Registered Sale deed bearing No 3007/1968-69, Vol. No. 724 at pages 120-124 dated 19/09/1968 is not binding on the Plaintiff share is concerned. f) To declare that the Registered Sale deed bearing No 3008/1968-69, Vol. No.726 at pages 73-78 dated 18/09/1968 is not binding on the Plaintiff share is concerned g) To declare that the Registered Sale deed bearing No.3009/1968-69, Vol. No. 673 at pages 101-105 dated 19/09/1968 is not binding on the Plaintiff share is concerned. h) To declare that the Registered Sale deed bearing No.2365/1969-70, Vol. No.775 at pages 182-184 dated 16/08/1969 is not binding on the Plaintiff share is concerned. i) To declare that the Registered Sale deed bearing No.3388/1971-72, Vol. No.896 at pages 112-115 dated 15/09/1971 is not binding on the Plaintiff share is concerned. j) To declare that the Registered Sale deed bearing No.6783/1991-92, Vol No 259 at pages 143-146 dated 14/12/1990 which Registered on 06/03/1991 is not binding on the Plaintiff share is concerned. k) To declare that the Registered Sale deed bearing No. 1058/1967-68, Book No.1 and Vol No 586 at pages 202-205 dated 24/05/1966 is not binding on the Plaintiff share is concerned. l) To declare that the Registered Sale deed bearing No. 1944/1967-68, Book No.1 and Vol. No.652 at pages 204-206 dated 28/07/1967 is not binding on the Plaintiff share is concerned m) To declare that the Registered partition deed bearing No.205/1998-99 dated 08.05.1998 registered on 11.05.1998 between the defendant No.17 to 18 is not binding on the plaintiff. n) Issue a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from them, or their men, agents, servants or anybody claiming through or under them from alienating, mortgaging, leasing., Encumbering or in any manner parting with possession of the schedule property to the third parties in respect of the schedule property. o) Direct the defendants to pay the mesne profit. n) Issue a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from them, or their men, agents, servants or anybody claiming through or under them from alienating, mortgaging, leasing., Encumbering or in any manner parting with possession of the schedule property to the third parties in respect of the schedule property. o) Direct the defendants to pay the mesne profit. p) Direct the defendants to pay the cost of the suit and grant such other relief's as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity. 10. This Court deems it fit to cull out paragraph-5 of the plaint, which reads as under: 5. The plaintiff further submit that, the plaintiff herein is the great grandson of one Malligaiah alias Mallappa who is the original grantee and the said original grantee Malligaiah had three sons by nane 1. Linganna (dead) 2. Hanumanthappa (dead) 3. Ramaiah (dead) ,the family was consisting of Undivided Hindu Joint Family and governed by Hindu Mithakshara Law having above properties belonging to joint Hindu family. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are the children of Late Linganna,, defendant No. 3 is the son of late Ramakrishna who is the first son of Lingappa, Defendant No.4 and 5 are sons of Late Lakshmanna. who is the second son of Lingappa, Defendant No 6 is the grandson of one Hamnumanthappa, Defendant No. 7 is the daughter-in-law of late Ramiah, Defendant No. 8 to 19 are subsequent purchasers of the suit schedule properties under various sale deeds mentioned below. 11. Upon a detailed reading of the pleadings, it is evident that the suit schedule property was originally granted to Mallappa, who is stated to be the great- grandfather of the present plaintiff. The plaintiff, asserting lineage through Ningappa, one of the three sons of Mallappa, claims that the property was jointly inherited by the three sons, namely, Ningappa, Hanumanthappa, and Ramaiah. It is further alleged that the alienations carried out by Hanumanthappa and Ramaiah under several registered sale deeds commencing from 1967 were not with the concurrence of Ningappa or his descendants, including the plaintiff. The suit seeks partition and separate possession of a 1/3rd share, coupled with declaratory reliefs seeking to render the sale deeds from 1967 onwards as not binding on the plaintiff’s alleged share. 12. The suit seeks partition and separate possession of a 1/3rd share, coupled with declaratory reliefs seeking to render the sale deeds from 1967 onwards as not binding on the plaintiff’s alleged share. 12. On scrutiny of the pleadings and prayer column of the plaint, it becomes abundantly clear that the earliest impugned alienation was executed on 28.07.1967, and the suit seeking to assail that transaction has been filed only in 2022 almost 55 years later. It is thus evident that the plaintiff is not merely seeking partition but is primarily seeking to question alienations of immovable property made more than five decades ago. The suit is fundamentally declaratory in character, with partition claimed as a consequential relief. 13. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. What emerges from the plaint is that the suit property was a grant in favour of Mallappa, the original propositus. Upon his demise, the property is stated to have devolved upon his three sons. Crucially, the plaintiff admits in paragraph 5 of the plaint that he is the great- grandson of the grantee Mallappa and that the alienations were carried out by the brothers of his grandfather. This admission significantly weakens the foundation of the suit. If, as admitted by the plaintiff, the property was granted to Mallappa and not to a joint family as such, then upon his demise, the devolution of the estate would occur in accordance with Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and not under Section 6 . In such a case, the three sons namely Ningappa, Hanumanthappa, and Ramaiah would succeed as tenants-in-common and not as coparceners in a joint Hindu family. The property inherited under Section 8 becomes individual and absolute property, not joint family property capable of being partitioned in terms of birthright. Consequently, neither Lingappa (plaintiff’s father) nor the present plaintiff could claim a coparcenary interest or a right by birth in the suit schedule property. 14. The record further reveals that Ningappa, the plaintiff's grandfather, who was admittedly alive when the impugned sale deeds were executed, never challenged or questioned those transactions during his lifetime. This silence speaks volumes and strongly suggests acquiescence. The plaintiff’s case appears to be an afterthought and a veiled attempt to reopen settled transactions under the guise of a partition suit. The record further reveals that Ningappa, the plaintiff's grandfather, who was admittedly alive when the impugned sale deeds were executed, never challenged or questioned those transactions during his lifetime. This silence speaks volumes and strongly suggests acquiescence. The plaintiff’s case appears to be an afterthought and a veiled attempt to reopen settled transactions under the guise of a partition suit. Given the admitted fact that the suit property was alienated as early as in 1967, the institution of the present suit in 2022 is not only belated but is a gross abuse of process. It clearly lacks any tenable cause of action. The plaint, read in its entirety, does not disclose any material basis upon which a right to sue could be sustained, especially after such an inordinate and unexplained delay. 15. Further, a perusal of the plaint reveals a series of alienations effected through registered sale deeds spanning over three decades. These include transactions from 1967, 1968, 1969, 1971, 1990, and a registered partition deed in 1998. Many of these alienations are in favour of third parties who are not members of the plaintiff’s family. In such a context, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chhedilal Yadav & Ors. vs. Harikishore Yadav (Dead) through LRs & Ors. is aptly applicable. The Apex Court has categorically held that when third-party rights have crystallized through registered instruments and possession has changed hands, a stale and speculative claim particularly one lacking foundational title cannot be entertained after a long passage of time. 16. In light of the above, the trial Court was entirely justified in exercising the power under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 , which mandates that even in the absence of a specific plea, the Court must reject claims that are patently barred by limitation. The declaration sought in relation to the 1967 alienations is clearly governed by Article 58 or Article 109 of the Limitation Act, and the limitation period expired decades ago. Thus, the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC by the Trial Court is in accordance with law. Accordingly, Point No. (i) is answered in the a ffirmative. FINDING ON POINT NO. (ii): 17. For the reasons enumerated above, this Court finds no infirmity in the order of the Trial Court rejecting the plaint. Thus, the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC by the Trial Court is in accordance with law. Accordingly, Point No. (i) is answered in the a ffirmative. FINDING ON POINT NO. (ii): 17. For the reasons enumerated above, this Court finds no infirmity in the order of the Trial Court rejecting the plaint. The Court of first instance has correctly applied the principles governing Section 3 of the Limitation Act and Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The learned Judge has meticulously scrutinized the plaint averments, identified the absence of a valid cause of action, and rightly concluded that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. The reasoning adopted is in conformity with settled legal principles and the binding precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 18. In view of the admitted chronology of events, the nature of reliefs sought, and the inordinate delay of over five decades in questioning the alienations, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the well-reasoned order of the Trial Court. The present suit appears to be a belated and ill-conceived attempt to stake a claim over valuable immovable property in Bengaluru, with no legal foundation or factual merit. Accordingly, Point No. (ii) is also answered in the negative and the appeal stands dismissed as devoid of merit.