- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22499 RP No. 182 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REVIEW PETITION NO. 182 OF 2011 IN RSA NO.491 OF 2002 BETWEEN: SRI CHAKRA KOOSAIAH, S/O JAVARAIAH, SINCE DECEASED BY LRS 1. SMT BASAMMA, D/O LATE CHAKRA KOOSAIAH, W/O D K BASAVANNA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, DODDARAYA PET, CHAMARAJANAGAR TQ & DISTRICT. 2. SRI JAYARAM, S/O LATE CHAKRA KOOSAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O AMACHAWADI VILLAGE, HARADANAHALLI HOBLI, CHAMARAJANAGAR TQ & DISTRICT. 3. SRI MALLU, S/O LATE CHAKRA KOOSAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O AMACHAWADI VILLAGE, HARADANAHALLI HOBLI, CHAMARAJANAGAR TQ & DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT B V VIDYULATHA, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22499 RP No. 182 of 2011 AND: SRI CHIKKAMALLAIAH, S/O LATE MALLAIAH SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS 1. SMT PUTTAMMA, W/O LATE CHIKKAMALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS 2. SRI PUTTASIDAIAH, S/O LATE CHIKKAMALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS 2(a) SMT MANGALLAMMA, D/O LATE PUTTASIDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 2(b) SMT SUNDRAMMA, D/O LATE PUTTASIDAIAH,AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 2(c) SRI PRADEEP, S/O LATE PUTTASIDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AMACHAVADI VILLAGE, HARADANA HALLI HOBLI, CHAMRAJANAGAR TALUK AND DISTRICT-571127. 3. SRI BELLAIAH, S/O LATE CHIKAMALLAIAH,AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 4. SRI SHIVAIAH, LATE CHIKKAMALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, APPELLANT NOS. 1 TO 4 ARE R/AT AMACHAWADI VILLAGE,HARADANAHALLI HOBLI, CHAMRAJNAGAR DISTRICT. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22499 RP No. 182 of 2011 5. SMT SUBBAMMA, W/O SRI SUBBAIAH AND D/O LATE CHIKKAMALLAIAH, MAJOR, R/AT SAPPAIAHNAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHAMRAJANAGAR DISTRICT. SRI CHIKKAHYDA, S/O LATE MALLAIAH, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS 6. SMT CHANNAMMA, W/O LATE CHIKKAHYDA,AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS. 7. SRI VEERABHADRAIAH, S/O LATE CHIKAHYDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 8. SRI GIRIAIAH, S/O LATE CHIKKAHYDA,AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, SINCE DECEASED BY LRS (a) SMT JAYAMMA, W/O LATE GIRIAIHA,AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. (b) SMT SHAKUNTALA, D/O LATE GIRIAIHA,AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS. (c) SMT CHAITHRA, D/O LATE GIRIAIHA,AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS. (d) SRI UDAYKUMAR, S/O LATE GIRIAIHA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, APPELLANT NOS. 5 TO 8(a) to (d) ARE R/AT AMACHAWADI VILLAGE, HARADANAHALLI HOBLI, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT. 9. SMT NANJAMMA, W/O MOOKALLI SIDDAIAH, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22499 RP No. 182 of 2011 D/O LATE CHIKKAHYDA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,R/AT AMACHAWADI VILLAGE, HARADANAHALLI HOBLI, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT. 10. SMT MALLAMMA, W/O RANGAIAH,D/O LATE CHIKKAHYDA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT MANGALADA HOSURU, KASABA HOBLI, CHAMRAJANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT. 11. SRI M NANJUNDAIAH, S/O LATE MALLAIAH, MAJOR, SINCE DECEASED BY LRS (a) SMT RAJESHWARI, W/O LATE NANJUDAIAH,AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. (b) SRI MALLIKARJUNA, S/O LATE NANJUNDAIAH,AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, (c) SRI PUTTASWAMY, S/O LATE NANJUNDAIAH,AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, (d) SMT BHAGYAMMA, D/O LATE NANJUNDAIAH,AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, (e) SMT RATHNAMMA, D/O LATE NANJUNDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS RESPONDENT 11(a) TO (e) ARE ALL RESIDING AT R/AT AMACHAWADI VILLAGE, HARADANAHALLI HOBLI, CHAMRAJNAGAR TQ AND DISTRICT. 12. SRI ERAIAH, S/O LATE KONGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT AMACHAWADI VILLAGE, HARADANAHALLI HOBLI, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22499 RP No. 182 of 2011 CHAMRAJANAGAR TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT. SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS (a) MALLIKARJUNA, S/O LATE ERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, C/O RACHAIAH,EXCISE DEPARTMENT, I WARD NEW EXTENSION,SOMAVARPET POST, CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK AND DISTRICT. (b) MARKANDAIAH, S/O LATE ERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, AMACHAVADI VILLAGE AND POST, CHAMARJANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT. SRI PUTTAMALLAIAH, S/O LATE KONGAIAH, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS 13. SMT GOWRAMMA, W/O LATE PUTTAMALLAIAH,AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 14. SRI PARVATHAIAH, S/O LATE PUTTAMALAIAH,AGED AOBUT 50 YEARS, 15. SMT KEMPAMANI, W/O SRI MAHADEVAIAH, D/O LATE PUTTAMALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOS.13-15 ARE R/AT ALUR VILLAGE, CHANDAKAWADI HOBLI, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT. (CAUSE TITLE AMENDED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 18.02.2013) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ASHISH KRUPAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (A-C) R3 TO R7, R8(A TO D), R9, R10, R11(A TO E), R12 (A&B), R13 TO R15, R1 IS DEAD AND HIS LRS R2-R5 ARE ALREADY ON RECORD) - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22499 RP No. 182 of 2011 THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO FOR REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 07-01-2011 PASSED IN RSA.491/2002, ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER This Review Petition is filed seeking review of the judgment in RSA 491/2002. The suit for partition filed by the respondent in this review petition was decreed against which an appeal is filed and appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. The Second Appeal is also dismissed on merits after considering the substantial question of law framed in paragraph No.8 of the said judgment which reads as under: "Whether the finding of the appellate Court that the grant made in favour of the appellant under the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act is not a personal and an exclusive grant and that it was an ancestral inheritance is bad in law and perverse by contrary to evidence on record?" - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22499 RP No. 182 of 2011 2. The review petition is filed primarily on the premise that the substantial question of law ought to have been framed relating to the limitation on the premise that the suit is barred by limitation. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners would submit that the land in question was granted to the ancestors of the review petitioners. Respondents filed an application before the jurisdictional Tribunal to regrant the land to the respondents as well along with the petitioners' ancestors. The regrant order in favour of the petitioners' ancestors is dated 19.10.1972. The respondents filed an application for regrant in the year 1974. Challenging the regrant order dated 19.10.1972, appeal was filed before the learned District Judge on 25.10.1983 i.e., within 12 years. 4. The said application was rejected, in 1973 Thereafter, an appeal was filed against the said order before the learned District Judge 11 years after the dismissal of the application. The appeal filed before the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22499 RP No. 182 of 2011 learned District Judge is also dismissed and later, 10 years after the dismissal of appeal filed before the learned District Judge, the suit for partition is filed. 5. In the aforementioned circumstances, it is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that disposal of Regular Second Appeal without reference to the question of limitation is an error apparent on the face of the record in the light of mandate under Section 3 of the Limitation Act. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand would submit that the question of limitation does not arise as the defendants-petitioners have not raised the plea of ouster as required under Article 110 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners referring to the language of Article 110 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would submit that it was incumbent upon the plaintiffs to file a suit within 12 years from the date of the dismissal of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22499 RP No. 182 of 2011 their application before the jurisdictional Land Tribunal which was rejected in the year 1973. 8. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 9. There is no dispute that the suit is one for partition and separate possession. The relevant Article relating to limitation governing the suit for partition is Article 110 of the Limitation Act which reads as under: Description of suit Period of limitation Time from which period begins to run By a person excluded from a joint family property to enforce a right to share therein. Twelve years When the exclusion becomes known to the plaintiff 10. From the language employed in Article 110 of the Limitation Act, it is evident that the suit for partition if filed by person who alleges that he has been excluded from the joint family property, then same has to be filed within 12 years, from the date when exclusion becomes - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22499 RP No. 182 of 2011 known to the plaintiff. The facts would reveal that the application filed by the respondents was rejected by the Tribunal in the year 1973. Eleven years later, i.e. within 12 years, the respondents filed an appeal before the learned District Judge challenging the order of the Tribunal. The appeal is dismissed on the ground of limitation and within 12 years from the date of dismissal of the appeal, the suit is filed. From 1973 to 1995 till the suit was filed, the respondents were prosecuting the dispute before the Tribunal and the learned District Judge of course, intermittently. This being the position, this Court is of the view that the plea of ouster is not available to the defendants. 11. It is also noticed that to raise a contention relating to ouster, the defendants in the first instance must establish that the property also belonged to the plaintiff and despite knowing that the property belongs to the plaintiff, the plaintiff was ousted from the property by setting-up an adverse and hostile title against the plaintiff. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22499 RP No. 182 of 2011 Such plea is not forth coming in the pleading or written statement filed by the defendants. On the other hand the defendants claimed exclusive ownership based on grant. 12. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the view that non-consideration of the plea relating to limitation has not caused any injustice. Even assuming that the plea of limitation is taken into consideration because of mandate of Section 3 of the Limitation Act, this Court does not find any pleading and evidence to support the plea of ouster which will ultimately result in dismissal of the suit for partition on the ground of limitation. 13. No case is made out to review the impugned judgment and decree. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40