- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10367-DB RFA No. 138 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.138 OF 2024 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SRI VENKOBA RAO S/O. LATE PATEL LAKSHMANA RAO AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS. 2. SRI MAHADEVA RAO S/O. LATE PATEL LAKSHMANA RAO AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS. 3. SRI SOMASHEKAR RAO S/O. LATE PATEL LAKSHMANA RAO AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. ALL ARE RESIDING AT SHIVANAHALLI VILLAGE RAJAHALLI PANCHAYAT JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 106. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI NAVEEN J.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. YASHODAMMA W/O. LATE SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS. 2. SRI K. S. SATHISH S/O. LATE SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS. 3. SRI R. SOWMYA W/O. K. S. SATHISH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS. Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10367-DB RFA No. 138 of 2024 4. MASTER DIMPLE K. S. S/O. K. S. SATHISH AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS MINOR SON REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN/FATHER SRI K. S. SATHISH. 5. KUM. K. S. NIKSHEPA D/O. K. S. SATHISH AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS MINOR DAUGHTER REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN/FATHER SRI K. S. SATHISH. RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT KRISHNAPURA VILLAGE, GARAKAHALLI POST CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 562 106. 6. SRI K. S. UMAKANTH S/O. LATE SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS. 7. SMT. K. P. SUMALATHA W/O. K. S. UMAKANTH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS. 8. KUM. PRATHIKSHA D/O. K. S. UMAKANTH AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS MINOR DAUGHTER REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT. K. P. SUMALATHA. RESPONDENT NOS.6 TO 8 ARE RESIDING AT NO.6/8, 1/407 OLD WATER TANK ROAD LEELAVATHI LAYOUT MADDUR MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 428. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10367-DB RFA No. 138 of 2024 9. SRI PRASANNA KUMAR H. K. S/O. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.45 AMRUTHA LAYOUT HARAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562 106. 10. SRI CHIKKASAKAIAH S/O. LATE KATERE MARAPPA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS RESIDING AT KATERE DODDI SHIVANAHALLI VILLAGE RAGIHALLI PANCHAYATH AND POST JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562 106. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI DHANANJAY JOSHI, SENIOR COUNSEL, FOR SMT. KAVITHA DAMODARAN, ADVOCATE, FOR C/R-9) * * * THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE C.P.C., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16-12-2023 PASSED ON I.A. NO.5 IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.621 OF 2023 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, ANEKAL, ALLOWING I.A. NO.V FILED UNDER ORDER VII, RULE 11(d) READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE C.P.C. FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10367-DB RFA No. 138 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) This appeal is filed by the appellants/plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree dated 16.12.2023 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Anekal, on I.A. No.V in Original Suit No.621 of 2023. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court. The appellants are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs instituted a suit in Original Suit No.621 of 2023 before the trial Court against defendant Nos.1 to 10 for the relief of declaration of their ownership over the suit schedule properties and also sought for consequential relief of permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No.9 filed I.A. No.V under Order VII, Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC'), to reject the plaint on the ground that the statements made in the plaint is barred under law. The plaintiffs filed objections to I.A. No.V and the trial - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10367-DB RFA No. 138 of 2024 Court allowed I.A. No.V rejecting the plaint. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the plaintiffs have filed this appeal. 4. As per the case of the plaintiffs, one Krishnoji Rao was owner of the suit schedule property bearing Survey No.70 measuring 7 acres and 33 guntas situated at Shivanahalli Village, Anekal Taluk. Krishnoji Rao married Smt. Rangamma and out of their wedlock, they had a son, by name, Lakshman Rao @ Patel Lakshman Rao. After death of Krishnoji Rao and Rangamma, Lakshman Rao succeeded to the schedule property. Lakshman Rao is none other than the father of the plaintiffs, who mortgaged the schedule property to BDO Bank under registered Mortgage Deed dated 31.3.1965 for a sum of Rs.3,000/-. Later, Lakshman Rao executed a conditional Sale Deed/Agreement of Sale dated 16.1.1969 in favour of one Siddegowda @ Kadegowda. Though conditional Sale Deed was executed in favour of Siddegowda @ Kadegowda, Lakshman Rao was in possession of the schedule property. However, Siddegowda @ Kadegowda (father-in-law and grandfather of defendant Nos.1 to 8) by taking undue advantage of the conditional Sale Deed dated 16.1.1969 got transferred revenue entries into his name by colluding with Revenue Authorities. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10367-DB RFA No. 138 of 2024 5. After the death of Siddegowda @ Kadegowda, Yashodamma i.e. daughter-in-law of Siddegowda @ Kadegowda, defendant No.1 transferred khata in M.R. No.41/2006-07 and thereafter, defendant Nos.1 to 8 sold 3 acres and 16 guntas, out of 7 acres and 33 guntas of Shivanahalli Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, in Survey No.70 in favour of Prasanna Kumar H.K., i.e. defendant No.9, through Sale Deed dated 29.6.2021. Therefore, the revenue entries were effected in the name of defendant No.9. 6. It is contended that at no point of time, neither Siddegowda @ Kadegowda, father-in-law and grandfather of defendant Nos.1 to 8, nor Siddaiah, the husband and father of defendant Nos.1 to 8, nor Defendant No.9 were in possession of the suit schedule property. On 5.12.2022 at about 11:00 a.m., defendant No.9 came near the suit schedule property and claimed that he purchased 3 acres and 16 guntas from defendant Nos.1 to 8. In this background, the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to declare that the plaintiffs as the absolute owners in possession of the suit schedule property and consequently, sought for relief to declare that conditional Sale - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10367-DB RFA No. 138 of 2024 Deed/Agreement of Sale dated 16.1.1969 executed by Lakshman Rao in favour of Siddegowda @ Kadegowda is illegal, void and not binding on the plaintiffs and also sought for relief to declare that Sale Deed executed by defendant Nos.1 to 8 in favour of defendant No.9 dated 29.6.2021 and Rectification Deed executed by defendant Nos.1 to 8 in favour of defendant No.9 on 29.6.2021 are illegal, void and not binding on the plaintiffs and also sought consequential relief of injunction restraining defendant Nos.1 to 10 and their persons from alienating, or by creating any agreement in favour of third parties in respect of the suit schedule property, and also sought for permanent injunction from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. 7. It is contended that 'A' schedule property is measuring 7 acre and 33 guntas in Survey No.70. Out of which, 'B' schedule property is measuring 4 acre and 10 guntas and 'C' schedule property is measuring of 3 acres and 16 guntas, with kharab land of 7 guntas. 8. The plaintiffs had sought for declaration for cancellation of the conditional Sale Deed dated 16.1.1969, - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:10367-DB RFA No. 138 of 2024 which is a mixed question of fact and law and that can only be adjudicated by evidence by examining witnesses. Such being the case, the trial Court instead of proceeding the suit on merits, allowed the application of defendant No.9 and rejected the plaint of the plaintiffs. Since father of the plaintiffs mortgaged the schedule property in favour of BDO Bank on 31.3.1996, the question of alienation in respect of schedule property in favour of Siddegowda @ Kadegowda does not arise and at any rate, Siddegowda @ Kadegowda will not get the absolute right under the conditional Sale Deed dated 16.1.1969, as it was never redeemed from the mortgage. Hence, the specific aspect has to be proved by the plaintiffs and it requires full probe and merely on the question of law of limitation, the suit cannot be dismissed under Order VII, Rule 11(d) of the CPC. Further, at no point of time, defendant Nos.1 to 8 were in possession of the suit schedule property and therefore, the conditional Sale Deed executed in favour of defendant No.9 is not at all maintainable in law, as defendant Nos.1 to 8 had no right to sell the property in favour of defendant No.9. Now, subsequent purchaser, i.e. defendant No.9, filed application to reject the plaint, but the trial Court - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:10367-DB RFA No. 138 of 2024 without assigning the valid reasons rejected the plaint. The order passed by the trial Court is also contrary to Section 58 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No.9 has contended that the plaintiffs had challenged the Sale Deed pertaining of the year 1969. Thus, he had filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of the CPC to reject the plaint as same is barred by law of limitation under Section 109 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material available on record, the point that would arise for consideration in this appeal is: Whether the trial Court is justified in rejecting the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11(d) of the CPC on the point of limitation? 11. The plaintiffs have specifically taken contention that their father, Lakshman Rao, executed the conditional Sale Deed/Agreement of Sale dated 16.1.1969 in favour of Siddegowda @ Kadegowda and said Siddegowda @ Kadegowda was never in possession of the schedule property and the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:10367-DB RFA No. 138 of 2024 father of the plaintiffs continued to be in possession of the schedule property. 12. We have perused the certified copy of the conditional Sale Deed/Agreement of Sale dated 16.1.1969, which reads as under: "¸À£ï ¸Á«gÀzÀ MA¨sÉÊ£ÀÆgÀ CgÀªÀvÉÆÛA¨sÀvÀÛ£ÉAiÀÄ E¸À« d£ÀªÀj vÁjÃRÄ ºÀ¢£ÁgÀgÀ°è; ZÀ£ÀߥÀlÖt vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ «gÀÆ¥ÁQë¥ÀÄgÀ ºÉÆç½ PÀȵÁÚ¥ÀÄgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀĪÀ ¹zÉÝÃUËqÀgÀ ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ CgÀªÀvÀÄÛ ªÀµÀð ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì¼Àî fgÁ¬ÄÛ PÀ¸À©¤AzÀ fêÀ£À ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ¹zÉÝÃUËqÀ GgÀÄ¥sï PÁqÉÃUËqÀgÀªÀgÀjUÉ; D£ÉÃPÀ¯ï vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ fUÀt ºÉÆç½ PÉ.f. ²ªÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀĪÀ QæµÁÚfgÁAiÀÄgÀ ªÀÄUÀ LªÀvÉÛGÊzÀÄ ªÀµÀð ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì¼Àî fgÁ¬ÄÛ PÀ¸À©¤AzÀ fêÀ£À ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ PÉ.J¸ï. ®PÀëGätgÁªï DzÀ £Á£ÀÄ §gɹPÉÆlÖ d«ÄãÀÄ PÀæAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ. DzÁV, EzÉà ²ªÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ §½ £À£Àß ¦vÁæfðvÀªÁV §AzÀÄ £À£Àß C£ÀĨsÀªÀ ¸Áé¢üãÀzÀ°ègÀĪÀ RÄ¶Ì d«ÄäUÉ ZÀPÀÄ̧A¢: ¥ÀƪÀðPÉÌ : UÀĽîUÀ£À ºÉÆ® ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀPÁðj UÀÄmÉÖ ¥À²ÑªÀÄPÉÌ : ªÉAPÀƨÁAiÀĪÀÄä£ÀªÀgÀ ºÉÆ® GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ : PÁmÉÃj ªÀiÁgÀ¥Àà£À ºÉÆ® zÀQëtPÉÌ : GgÀUÀ£À zÉÆqÀبsÀAVAiÀÄ ºÉÆ® F ªÀÄzsÉå EgÀvÀPÀÌ ¸ÀªÉð J¥ÀàvÀÛ£ÉAiÀÄ £ÀA§gÀÄ RÄ¶Ì ©ÃdªÀj RgÁ§Ä zÉÃQ¯ï K¼ÀÄ JPÀgÉ ªÀÄƪÀvÀÛ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ UÀÄAmÉUÉ DPÁgÀ K¼ÀÄ gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä C¯Áè ºÀ£ÉÆßAzÀÄ gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä E¥ÀàvÉÛGÊzÀÄ ¥ÉʸÉAiÀÄļÀî d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß F ¢£À £À£Àß CªÀ¸ÀgÀzÀ zÀgÀzÀÄ ¤«ÄvÀåªÁV CAzÀgÉ ¨sÁ« vÉUÉAiÀÄ®Ä ¸ÀPÁðgÀ¢AzÀ ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀvÀPÀÌ ¸Á®ªÀ£ÀÄß wÃj¹PÉƼÀî®Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß PÀÄlÄA§ ¥ÉÆõÀuÉUÁVAiÀÄÆ ¸ÀºÀ ¸ÀzÀj d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¤ªÀÄUÉ UË£ÀðªÉÄAlÄ JgÀqÀÄ ¸Á«gÀ gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ½UÉ PÀjâAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤µÀ̵Éð ªÀiÁr RjâAiÀÄ ªÉƧV£À ¥ÉÊQ F ¢£À F PɼÀUÉ PÀAqÀ ¸ÁQëUÀ¼À ªÉÆPÀÛ MAzÀÄ £ÀÆgÀ - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:10367-DB RFA No. 138 of 2024 E¥ÀàvÉÛGÊzÀÄ gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É ¨ÁQ EgÀĪÀ MAzÀÄ ¸Á«gÀzÀ JAlÄ £ÀÆgÀ J¥ÀàvÉÛGÊzÀÄ gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼À°è ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ ¸Á®zÀ ªÉƧ®UÀÄ MAzÀÄ ¸Á«gÀzÀ LzÀÄ £ÀÆgÀÄ J¥ÀàvÉÛGÊzÀÄ gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀæ F ¥ÀvÀæ jf¸ÀÖgï ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ªÉÃ¼É ¸À¨ï jf¸ÀÖgï gÀªÀgÀ gÀÆ§Ä gÀÆ§Ä ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ F ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß jf¸ÀÖgï ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆqÀÄvÉÛãÉ. C®èzÉ ¸ÀzÀj d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß F ¢£ÀªÉà ¤ªÀÄä ¸ÀÄ¥À¢ðUÉ ©lÄÖPÉÆnÖ¬ÄgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. F ¯ÁUÀAiÀÄÄÛ ¸ÀzÀj d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¤ªÀÄä EµÁÖ£ÀĸÁgÀ ¸ÁUÀĪÀ½ ªÀUÉÊgÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ CzÀgÀ°èªÀÅAmÁUÀ §ºÀÄzÁzÀ ¤¢ü ¤PÉëÃ¥À d® vÀgÀÄ ¥ÁµÁt¢ü ªÀUÉÊgÉ CµÀÖ ¨ÉÆÃUÀAUÀ½ K£ÀÄ §AzÁUÀÆå ¸ÀºÀ ¤ÃªÀÇ ¤ªÀÄä ¥ÀÄvÀæ ¥ËvÀæ ¥ÁgÀA¥ÀAiÀÄðªÁV C£ÀĨsÀ«¹PÉÆAzÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ PÀAzÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß F ¯UÁAiÀÄÄÛ ¤ÃªÉ PÀnÖPÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÀÄRzÀ°ègÀĪÀÅzÀÄ F d«ÄäUÉ AiÀiÁgÀ vÀAmÉ vÀPÀgÁgÀÄ K£ÀÄ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. F d«ÄãÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ DzsÁgÀ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ ¨Á§ÄÛ ©qÀÄUÀqÉ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¤ªÀÄUÉ ªÀ»¹ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉƧ®UÀÄ ªÉÄîÌAqÀAvÉ ¤ªÀÄä PÀqÉAiÉÄà ©nÖgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. EzÀ®èzÉ ªÀÄvÁåjUÀÆ AiÀiÁªÀ «zsÀzÀ°èAiÀÄÆ ¸ÀºÀ ¥ÀgÀ¨sÁgÉ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢¯Áè. MAzÀÄ ªÉÃ¼É F d«ÄäUÉ PÁgÀuÁAvÀgÀUÀ½AzÀ vÀAmÉ vÀPÀgÁgÀÄ §AzÀzÉÝà DzÀgÉ £À£Àß ¸ÀéAvÀ ºÁvï ¯ÁUÉÆÃqÀÄ Rað¤AzÀ ¥ÉʸÀ¯ï ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆqÀÄØvÉÛãÉA§ÄzÁV £À£Àß RÄzÀÄÝ ªÀÄ£ÉÆÃgÁf¬ÄAzÀ M¦à §gɬĹ PÉÆlÖ d«ÄãÀÄ ±ÀÄzÀÞ PÀæAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸À»." From recitals of the said Sale Deed, it clearly establishes that Lakshman Rao, father of the plaintiffs, entered into conditional Sale Deed/Agreement of Sale for a sum of Rs.2,000/- in favour of Siddegowda @ Kadegowda for clearance of loan borrowed by him and towards expenses incurred for digging of bore well in his land. Accordingly, on the same day, father of the plaintiffs received a sum of Rs.125/- only and he agreed to execute Sale Deed in favour of Siddegowda @ Kadegowda by receiving balance sale consideration of Rs.1,875/- which shows that it is 'mortgage by conditional sale' - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:10367-DB RFA No. 138 of 2024 as contemplated under Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, where the mortgagor ostensibly sells the property, but the sale becomes absolute on default, or void upon payment of the mortgage money. Further, it shows that the ingredients of 'Sale' is absent as contemplated under Section 54 of the Transfer of the Property Act, 1882, but there is a covenant that the contents of this Deed appears to be mortgage by conditional sale. 13. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that, Siddegowda @ Kadegowda by taking advantage of the Agreement of Sale dated 16.1.1969 got transferred the revenue entries into his name in collusion with the Revenue Authority. After the death of Siddegowda @ Kadegowda, Yashodamma, i.e. daughter-in- law of Siddegowda @ Kadegowda, defendant No.1 transferred khata in the year 2006 under M.R. No.41/2006-07 and thereafter, defendant Nos.1 to 8 sold 3 acres and 16 guntas, out of 7 acres and 33 guntas in Survey No.70 in favour of Prasanna Kumar H.K., i.e. defendant No.9, through Sale Deed dated 29.6.2021. Therefore, now, the revenue entries are effected in the name of defendant No.9. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:10367-DB RFA No. 138 of 2024 14. The specific case of the plaintiffs is that at no point of time, neither Siddegowda @ Kadegowda, father-in-law and grandfather of defendant Nos.1 to 8, nor Siddaiah, the husband and father of defendant Nos.1 to 8, nor defendant No.9 were in possession of the suit schedule property. Further, the plaintiffs contended that on 5.12.2022, defendant No.9 came near the suit schedule property and claimed that he purchased 3 acres and 16 guntas of land from defendant Nos.1 to 8. In this background, the plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration and injunction. 15. Admittedly, the plaintiffs had challenged the Sale Deed dated 28.7.1978 executed by the father of the plaintiffs, Lakshman Rao. In fact, under Sale Deed dated 28.7.1978, the father of the plaintiffs sold 1 acre of land in Survey No.70 in favour of defendant No.10. Admittedly, Lakshman Rao died in the year 1989. Till his death, Lakshman Rao did not challenge the said Sale Deed. By the year 1989, the plaintiffs attained the age of majority, but neither the father of the plaintiffs, nor the plaintiffs challenged the Sale Deed dated 28.7.1978. Hence, the Sale Deed dated 28.7.1978 executed by the father of the - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:10367-DB RFA No. 138 of 2024 plaintiffs in respect of 1 acre of land cannot be challenged and same is barred by law of limitation. 16. So far as the Sale Deed dated 16.1.1969 is concerned, according to the plaintiffs, it is mortgaged by conditional Sale Deed or in the nature of Agreement of Sale executed by the father of the plaintiffs to Siddegowda @ Kadegowda. Such document is in the nature of mortgage by conditional sale and it is not an absolute Sale Deed. Unless this issue is resolved, the suit cannot be dismissed on the point of limitation, as it requires full probe. 17. In this case, defendant No.9, who purchased the land in the year 2021 from defendant Nos.1 to 8, filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11(d) of the CPC on the ground of limitation. The rejection of plaint was sought primarily on the point of limitation. In so far as the rejection of the plaint on the ground of law of limitation is concerned, it is needless to emphasize that law of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law. The rejection of plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC is a drastic power conferred on the Court to terminate a civil action at the threshold. Therefore, the conditions precedent to - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:10367-DB RFA No. 138 of 2024 the exercise of the power are stringent and it is especially so when rejection of plaint is sought on the ground of limitation. When the plaintiffs claim that they gained knowledge of the essential facts giving rise to the cause of action only at a particular point of time, the same has to be accepted at the stage of considering the application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC. The plea regarding the date on which the plaintiffs gained knowledge of the essential facts is crucial for deciding the question, whether the suit is barred by limitation or not. It becomes a rival issue and hence, the suit cannot be thrown out at the threshold. 18. Referring to few averments contended in the plaint, the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants contended that the appellants/plaintiffs constructed notice of the earlier Sale Deeds dated 16.1.1969 and 28.7.1978. In fact, as per the plaint averments, it appears that the plaintiffs came to know about the Sale Deed executed by defendant Nos.1 to 8 in favour of defendant No.9 on 5.12.2022 when defendant No.9 came near the schedule property and proclaimed that he purchased 3 acres and 16 guntas from defendant Nos.1 to 8. But, defendant No.9 cannot pickup few sentences here and - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:10367-DB RFA No. 138 of 2024 there from the plaint and contend that the plaintiffs had constructed notice on the proceedings and therefore, limitation started running from the date of constructed notice way back in the years 1969 and 1978. In fact, the plea of constructed notice is raised by the respondents after asserting positively that the plaintiffs had real knowledge as well as actual notice of the proceedings. In any case, the plea of constructed notice appears to be a subsequent invention. 19. The decision in Ram Niwas (Dead) Through LRs. v. Smt. Bano and Others reported in (2000) 6 SCC 685 which revolved around Explanation II under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, cannot go to the rescue of the respondents. 20. Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, provides that a person is said to have notice of a fact, (i) either when he actually knows that fact; or (ii) when he would have known it if he had not willfully abstained from an enquiry or search which he ought to have made, or if there were gross negligence, in not making that enquiry. The relevant part of - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:10367-DB RFA No. 138 of 2024 Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, together with Explanation II reads as follows: 3. Interpretation clause.- "xxx xxx xxx A person is said to have notice of a fact when he actually knows that fact, or when, but for wilful abstention from an enquiry or search which he ought to have made, or gross negligence, he would have known it. xxx xxx xxx Explanation II. Any person acquiring any immovable 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." 21. In this case, it is the plaintiffs who are in possession and management of the entire schedule property and hence, Explanation II cannot be used by defendant No.9. Therefore, two ingredients of Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, cannot be raised in an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC. Therefore, defendant No.9 cannot take such plea and on such plea, the trial Court cannot reject the plaint - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:10367-DB RFA No. 138 of 2024 on the point of limitation, since it is mixed question of fact and law. 22. Looking into any angle, so far as the Sale Deed dated 16.1.1969, prima-facie, it appears that it is mortgaged by conditional Sale Deed or in the nature of Agreement of Sale, whereby, Lakshman Rao, father of the plaintiffs, intended to mortgage the property in favour of Siddegowda @ Kadegowda for a sum of Rs.125/- and the balance consideration amount was agreed to be paid at the time of registration. Hence, in this case, unless this issue is resolved, the suit cannot be dismissed on the point of law of limitation, since it is a question of fact and law. Thus, a full fledged trial is required in this case. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the trial Court clearly committed error in rejecting the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11(d) of the CPC. 23. For the reasons stated above, we proceed to pass the following: O R D E R i. Appeal is allowed, - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:10367-DB RFA No. 138 of 2024 ii. The judgment and decree dated 16.12.2023 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Anekal, on I.A. No.V in Original Suit No.621 of 2023, is hereby set aside and the suit is restored to its original file, and * the matter is remanded to the trial Court for consideration afresh by giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. All contentions are kept open. iii. No order as to costs. In view of the disposal of the main appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand dismissed. Sd/- (K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE KVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21 * Corrected vide court order dated 01.04.2025.