Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 646 (KAR)

Ashok Kumar S/O Muniyappa @ Roddappa v. Narayana Gowda S/O Muniyappa @ Roddappa

2025-06-30

ASHOK S.KINAGI

body2025
JUDGMENT : ASHOK S.KINAGI, J. This Regular First Appeal is filed by the appellant, challenging the order dated 2.4.2025 on I.A.No.VI, passed in OS No.857/2016, by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate of the First Class at Devanahalli. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the Trial Court. The appellant was the plaintiff, and the respondents were the defendants. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession, and to declare that the registered sale deed dated 19.10.2001, executed by defendants No.1 and 2, and others in favour of late Smt.Renukamma as not binding on the share of the plaintiff, and the registered sale deed dated 31.12.2004 and the Rectification Deed dated 6.7.2005 executed by the late Renukamma, defendants No.7 to 9 represented by her GPA holder, defendant No.10, in favour of defendant No.11 as not binding on the share of the plaintiff. 4. It is the case of the plaintiff that one Muniyappa @ Roddappa was the propositor of the family. He and his wife, defendant No.1 - Rajamma, had six issues, i.e., defendants No.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and the plaintiff. The plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 6 are governed by the Hindu Mitakshara Law. The plaintiff contended that originally the land bearing Sy.No.122/2 was cultivated by defendants No.1 and 2, and their family. During this time, the Government has passed an order that the persons who are cultivating the land, shall be declared as owners. As such, defendants No.1 and 2, being the elders of the joint family, the schedule property was granted in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 by the Land Tribunal, Devanahalli, on 11.12.1980. 5. The plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 6 are in joint possession of the suit schedule property, and there is no division or partition of the suit schedule property. It is contended that defendants No.1 and 2, along with their minor children, have illegally sold the schedule property in favour of Smt.Renukamma i.e. the mother of defendants No.7 to 9, under a registered sale deed dated 19.10.2001. It is contended that defendants No.1 and 2, along with their minor children, have illegally sold the schedule property in favour of Smt.Renukamma i.e. the mother of defendants No.7 to 9, under a registered sale deed dated 19.10.2001. As of the date of execution of the sale deed, the plaintiff was a minor, and without obtaining the permission from the Civil Court, defendants No.1 and 2 have sold the minor's share in the suit schedule property. The said sale consideration was not utilized for the welfare of the plaintiff. Thus, the sale deed dated 19.10.2001 is not binding on the share of the plaintiff. It is contended that Smt.Renukamma and her children, i.e. defendants No.7 to 9, executed a GPA in favour of defendant No.10, and based on the GPA, defendant No.10 sold the schedule property in favour of defendant No.11 under a sale deed dated 31.12.2004. The said sale deed is not binding on the plaintiff's share. Further, a Rectification Deed in favour of defendant No.11 on 4.7.2005, as the names of defendants No.7 to 9 were not mentioned in the sale deed dated 31.12.2004. 6. It is contended that the said transaction was not within the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff. It is further contended that defendants No.1 and 2 had no right to deal with the schedule property by ignoring the rights, and share of the plaintiff. The plaint was filed within three years from the date of knowledge, and prayed to decree the suit. 7. Defendant No.11 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the CPC, praying to reject the plaint, since there is no cause of action, and the suit is barred by limitation. The plaintiff opposed the said application by filing the statement of objections. 8. The Trial Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, allowed I.A.No.VI, and rejected the plaint vide order dated 2.4.2025. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the said order, filed this regular first appeal. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff, and Sri Vigneshwar S Shastri, learned Senior Counsel for defendant No.10. 10. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that defendants No.1 and 2 had no right to execute the sale deed in favour of Smt.Renukamma on 19.10.2001. He submitted that the suit schedule property is an ancestral property of the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 10. 10. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that defendants No.1 and 2 had no right to execute the sale deed in favour of Smt.Renukamma on 19.10.2001. He submitted that the suit schedule property is an ancestral property of the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 10. He submits that there is no division or partition effected between the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 6. He submits that the plaintiff did not know the sale deed executed by defendants No.1 and 2 in favour of Smt.Renukamma on 19.10.2001. The plaintiff became aware of the said transaction on 15.10.2016. 11. To buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of P Kumara Kurubaran vs. P Narayan and ors. in Civil Appeal No.5622/2025 reported in 2025 INSC 598. He submits that the plea of limitation is a mixed question of law, and fact, and the same cannot be adjudicated at the threshold. He also submits that the cause of action to file the suit is to be taken from the date of knowledge, and not from the registration of the sale deed. He submits that the Trial erred in allowing the application, and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, prays to allow the appeal. 12. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel for defendant No.10 submits that, admittedly, defendants No.1 and 2 executed a registered sale deed in favour of Smt.Renukamma, i.e. mother of defendants No.7 to 9 on 19.10.2001. He also submits that as per Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 when an instrument is registered, it gives knowledge to the whole world. He submits that the plaintiff ought to have filed the suit for declaration challenging the registered sale deed within three years from the date of attaining the age of majority as per Article 60 of the Limitation Act, 1962. Admittedly, on the date of filing the suit, the plaintiff was 31 years old. He submits that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. He submits that from the perusal of the cause title of the plaint, the age of the plaintiff is 31 years, and defendants No.1 and 2 executed the registered sale deed in 2001. The plaintiff did not file the suit within three years after attaining the age of majority. 13. He submits that from the perusal of the cause title of the plaint, the age of the plaintiff is 31 years, and defendants No.1 and 2 executed the registered sale deed in 2001. The plaintiff did not file the suit within three years after attaining the age of majority. 13. To buttress his argument, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Smt.Uma Devi and ors. vs. Sri Anand Kumar and ors. in SPL (Civil) No.2137/2025 reported in Manu/SC/0433/2025. He submits that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation, and there is no cause of action to file the suit. He submits that the Trial Court was justified in allowing the application by rejecting the plaint. Hence, he prays for the dismissal of the appeal. 14. The point that arises for consideration is: Whether the Trial Court committed an error in rejecting the plaint without considering the contents of the plaint? 15. Admittedly, the Land Tribunal granted the occupancy rights in favour of defendants No.1 and 2, and they sold the suit schedule property in favour of Smt.Renukamma on 19.10.2001. As of the date of execution of the sale deed, the plaintiff was minor, and subsequently, Smt.Renukamma and her children i.e. defendants No.7 to 9 executed a GPA in favour of defendant No.10. Defendant No.10 based on the GPA, executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.11 on 31.12.2004. Subsequently, a rectification deed was executed by defendant No.10 in favour of defendant No.11 on 4.7.2005. Before executing the GPA in favour of defendant No.10, the name of Smt.Renukamma was entered in the revenue records, based on the registered sale deed dated 19.10.2001. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff did not know about the sale transaction between defendants No.1 and 2 and Smt.Renukamma. 16. To consider the case on hand, it is necessary to examine Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 which reads as follows: "3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff did not know about the sale transaction between defendants No.1 and 2 and Smt.Renukamma. 16. To consider the case on hand, it is necessary to examine Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 which reads as follows: "3. … - Explanation 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 or, 2 [where the property is not all situated in one sub-district, or where the registered instrument has been registered under sub-section (2) of section 30 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), from the earliest date on which any memorandum of such registered instrument has been filed by any Sub-Registrar within whose sub-district any part of the property which is being acquired, or of the property wherein a share or interest is being acquired, is situated]: Provided that— (1) the instrument has been registered and its registration completed in the manner prescribed by the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) and the rules made thereunder, (2) the instrument 3[or memorandum] has been duly entered or filed, as the case may be, in books kept under section 51 of that Act, and (3) the particulars regarding the transaction to which the instrument relates have been correctly entered in the indexes kept under section 55 of that Act. Explanation II.—Any person acquiring any immoveable property or any share or interest in any such property shall be deemed to have notice of the title, if any, of any person who is for the time being in actual possession thereof. Explanation III.—A person shall be deemed to have had notice of any fact if his agent acquires notice thereof whilst acting on his behalf in the course of business to which that fact is material:" 17. From the bare reading of Section 3 of Explanation I, it is clear that where any transaction relating to immovable property is required by law to be, and has been effected by a registered instrument, it shall be deemed to have notice of such instrument as from the date of registration. From the bare reading of Section 3 of Explanation I, it is clear that where any transaction relating to immovable property is required by law to be, and has been effected by a registered instrument, it shall be deemed to have notice of such instrument as from the date of registration. Admittedly, the sale deed was executed on 19.10.2001 when the plaintiff was a minor, as on the date of execution of the registered sale deed. The plaintiff had knowledge regarding the execution of the registered sale deed by defendants No.1 and 2 in favour of Smt.Renukamma. Admittedly, the plaintiff was a minor as on the date of registration of the sale deed. From the perusal of the cause title in the plaint, the age of the plaintiff is 31 years. 18. The plaintiff, after attaining the age of majority, within three years, ought to have challenged the registered sale deed dated 19.10.2001, the registered sale deed dated 31.12.2004 and the rectification deed dated 4.7.2005. 19. On the contrary, the plaintiff has filed a suit on 15.12.2016 i.e., after more than fifteen years from the date of execution of a registered sale deed by defendants No.1 and 2 in favour of Smt.Renukamma, and the sale deed executed in favour of defendant No.11 on 31.12.2004. 20. Article 60 of the Limitation Act, 1963, deals with the time limit for a ward seeking set aside a transfer of property made by their guardian. It prescribes a period of three years for the ward to file a suit to challenge such a transfer after attaining the majority. 21. Admittedly, the plaintiff did not challenge the sale transaction within three years after attaining the age of majority. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. 22. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P Kumara Kurubaran -vs- P Narayan and ors. (supra), wherein it has been held that once the date of knowledge is specifically pleaded, and forms the basis of the cause of action, the issue of limitation cannot be decided summarily. It becomes a mixed question of law and fact, which cannot be adjudicated at the threshold stage under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. 23. (supra), wherein it has been held that once the date of knowledge is specifically pleaded, and forms the basis of the cause of action, the issue of limitation cannot be decided summarily. It becomes a mixed question of law and fact, which cannot be adjudicated at the threshold stage under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. 23. From the perusal of the contents of the plaint, it is noticed that the age of the plaintiff is 31 years, the sale deed executed by defendants No.1 and 2 in favour of Smt.Renukamma was on 19.10.2001, and the subsequent transaction is of 2004. The plaintiff contended that he came to know about the execution of the sale deed by defendants No.1 and 2 on 15.10.2016, as pleaded in para- 12 of the plaint. Although, the said transaction is within the knowledge of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has not pleaded in the plaint that date when he came to know about the transaction between the defendants No.1 and 2, and Smt.Renukamma. In the absence of pleadings regarding the date of knowledge, the Trial Court was justified in holding that there is no cause of action to file the suit, and the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. 24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt.Uma Devi and ors. vs. Sri Anand Kumar and ors. (supra) held that, a similar contention was raised in the suit regarding the limitation period, as limitation will be counted from the date of knowledge of the sale deed, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, it can safely be assumed that the predecessors of the plaintiffs had notice of the registered sale deeds (executed in 1978), flowing from the partition, that took place way back in 1968, by virtue of them being registered documents. In the lifetime of Mangalamma, these sale deeds have not been challenged, neither has partition been sought. Thus, the suit (filed in 2023) of the plaintiffs was prima facie barred by law. The plaintiffs cannot reignite their rights after sleeping on them for 45 years. 25. Admittedly, the plaintiff had knowledge regarding the execution of the sale deed by defendants No.1 and 2 in favour of Smt.Renukamma, and based on the GPA, executed by Smt.Renukamma to defendants No.7 to 9, defendant No.10 sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.11 under a sale deed dated 31.12.2004. 25. Admittedly, the plaintiff had knowledge regarding the execution of the sale deed by defendants No.1 and 2 in favour of Smt.Renukamma, and based on the GPA, executed by Smt.Renukamma to defendants No.7 to 9, defendant No.10 sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.11 under a sale deed dated 31.12.2004. The plaintiff did not challenge the registered sale deed executed by defendants No.1 and 2 in favour of Smt.Renukamma, and the sale deed executed by defendant No.10 in favour of defendant No.11. The plaintiff slept over for fifteen years, and subsequently, filed the suit for partition and separate possession and declaration. 26. The judgment relied on by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the defendant No.10 is aptly applicable to the case on hand. In view of the above proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt.Uma Devi and ors. vs. Sri Anand Kumar and ors. (supra), the Trial Court was justified in allowing I.A.No.VI and rejecting the plaint, on the ground that there is no cause of action to file the suit, and the suit is barred by limitation. 27. In view of the above discussion, I answer the point for consideration in negative. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is dismissed. ii) The order dated 2.4.2025 on I.A.No.VI passed in OS No.857/2016 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and Judicial magistrate of the First Class at Devanahalli, is hereby confirmed. No order as to the costs.