- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10909 RFA No. 1969 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1969 OF 2022 (PAR/DEC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT CHANNAMMA W/O LATE MUNINARAYANAPPA SINCE DECEASED HER LRs ARE APPELLANT 1 TO 8 SMT AMBIKA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS D/O LATE VENKATESH 2. SMT. NALINA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS D/O LATE VENKATESH 3. SRI. CHARANRAJ V AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS S/O LATE VENKATESH 4. SMT. SUSHEELAMMA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS D/O LATE MUNINARAYANAPPA 5. SRI . SRINIVASA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS S/O LT MUNINARAYANAPPA 6. SRI. GOVINDARAJ D M AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS S/O LATE MUNINARAYANAPPA 7. SRI. MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O LATE MUNINARAYANAPPA Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10909 RFA No. 1969 of 2022 8. SRI. MAHESH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O LATE MUNINARAYANAPPA ALL THE APPELLANTS ARE R/AT NO.79,KEMPEGOWDA MAIN ROAD DASARAHALLI, H.A. FORM POST BENGALURU 560 024 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RAVI L VAIDYA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT THIPPAMMA ALIAS JAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS D/O LATE ANNAYYAPPA 2. SRI. A.M GOWDA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS S/O LATE ANNAYYAPPA 3. SRI. ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS S/O LATE ANNAYYAPPA 4. SRI. MUNIBELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS S/O LATE ANNAYYAPPA RESPONDENTS NOS. 1 TO 4 ARE R/AT CHOWDESHWARI COMPLEX KEMPEGOWDA MAIN ROAD, DASARAHALLI, H.A. FORM POST BENGALURU 560 024 5. SRI. SONNAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS S/O LATE MUNIRAMAIAH 6. SMT. RADHAMMA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS D/O LATE MUNIRAMAIAH - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10909 RFA No. 1969 of 2022 7. SMT. SHANTHAMMA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS D/O LATE MUNIRAMAIAH RESPONDENTS NOS. 5 TO 7 ARE R/AT KANNURU VILLAGE AND POST BIDRAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU 562 149 8. SRI. ADINARAYANA S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 9. SRI. VENKATESH S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 10. SRI. MANJUNATH SO LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS RESPONDENTS NOS. 8 TO 10 ARE R/AT 21ST CROSS OPP. TO RAMAIAH COMPLEX BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR DASARAHALLI MAIN ROAD, H.A FORM POST BENGALURU 560 024 11. SRI. MUNIYAPPA S/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 12. SRI. SANTHOSH S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS RESPONDENTS NOS.11 & 12 ARE R/AT 77, KEMPEGOWDA MAIN ROAD, DASARAHALLI, H.A. FORM POST BENGALURU 560 024 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10909 RFA No. 1969 of 2022 13. SMT. SUSHEELAMMA W/O LATE RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 14. SRI. KUMARASWAMY S/O LATE RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 15. SRI. SOMASHEKAR SO LATE RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 16. JANARDHAN S/O LATE RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 17. SRI. VENUGOPAL S/O LATE RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RESPONDENTS NOS. 13 TO 17 ARE R/AT HUCHCHANNA GARDEN ROAD, NEAR NORTHILLS SCHOOL DASARAHALLI, H.A. FORM POST BENGALURU 560 024 18. SRI.D.P KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE PILLAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 19. SRI.D.P LAKSHMANA S/O LATE PILLAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 20. SRI. D.P KRISHNA MURTHY S/O LATE PILLAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 21. SRI.D.P GOPALAKRISHNA S/O LATE PILLAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10909 RFA No. 1969 of 2022 RESPONDENTS NOS. 18 & 21 ARE R/AT NO.75, KEMPEGOWDA MAIN ROAD, DASARAHALLI H.A. FORM POST BENGALURU 560 024 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRINATH P, ADVOCATE FOR CAV/R8 AND ALSO FOR R9 & R10 SRI JAGADEESHWAR J, ADVOCATE FOR R11; SRI M MOHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R12; SRI R HARSHA, ADVOCATE FOR R18 TO R21; R1 TO R4, R13 TO R17 ARE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED NOTICE TO R5 TO R7 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD 11.3.2025) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.10.2022 PASSED ON IA No.3 IN OS No.8503/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE XLII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE IA No.3 FILED UNDER 7 RULE 11(a) AND (d) OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.8503/2019 is directed against the impugned order/judgment and decree dated 13.10.2022 passed by the XLII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, whereby the application I.A.No.3 filed by the respondent No.8-defendant No.8 under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC was allowed by the Trial Court which proceeded to - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10909 RFA No. 1969 of 2022 reject the plaint and consequently, dismissed the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. With the consent of both sides, the lower court records have been procured from the Trial Court and the matter is taken up for final disposal. 4. The material on record discloses that the appellants- plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit seeking partition, declaration and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. In the said suit, the respondent No.8-defendant No.8 not only contested the suit by filing his written statement but also filed the instant application, I.A.No.3 seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC. The said application having been opposed by the plaintiffs, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing the application and thereby rejecting the plaint and consequently, dismissing the suit filed by the appellants-plaintiffs, who are before this Court by way of the present appeal. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10909 RFA No. 1969 of 2022 5. The following points arise for consideration in the present appeal: i) Whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the plaint and consequently, dismiss the suit filed by the appellants-plaintiffs in the facts and circumstances of the instant case? ii) Whether the impugned order/judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court warrants interference in the present appeal? 6. Since both the points are interlinked with each other, they are taken up together for consideration. Re:Point Nos.(i) and (ii):- 7. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it would be necessary to refer to the relevant portion of the plaint as under: “1. It is submitted that, one Sonnappa alias Annayyappa of Dasarahalli Village had 4 sons namely (i) Sri. Munibellappa, (ii) Sri. Chowdaiah, (iii) Sri.Sonnappa alias Maddannappa and (iv) Sri. Munishamappa, all of them were constituted Hindu Undivided Joint Family of which Sri.Sonnappa alias Annayyappa was the Kartha. Under a registered partition deed dated 05.11.1945 vide document No.2204/1945-46, all the aforesaid 4 sons of Sri. Sonnappa alias Annayyappa have partitioned all the joint - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:10909 RFA No. 1969 of 2022 family properties, under which an extent of 25 Guntas out of the total extent of 1 Acre 36 Guntas of land in Sy No.31 of Dasarahalli Village was allotted to the share of his third son Sri.Sonnappa alias Maddannappa along with other properties. Certified copy of the registered deed dated 05.11.1945 is herewith produced for kind perusal of this Hon'ble court. 2. It is submitted that, Sri.Sonnappa alias Maddannappa has 4 children namely (i) Sri.Annayyappa, (ii) Sri. Muninarayanappa, (iii) Munichowdappa and (iv)Sri.Muniramaiah. All of them constituted Hindu Undivided Joint Family, of which Sri Sonnappa alias Maddannappa was the Kartha till his death. Among the aforesaid sons, the first son Sri.Annayyappa died leaving behind him the Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 herein to succeed to his estate. The second son Sri Muninarayanappa died leaving behind him the Plaintiffs herein to succeed to his estate. The third son Sri. Munichowdappa died as a Bachelor, and the fourth son Sri. Muniramaiah died leaving behind the Defendant Nos.5 to 7 herein to succeed to his estate. Whereas the Defendant Nos.8 to 21 are unconnected to the family of the Plaintiffs and the Defendant Nos. 1 to 7. In order to substantiate the same, the genealogical tree of the family is herewith produced for kind perusal of this Hon'ble court. 3. It is submitted that, in pursuance of the registered partition deed dated 05.11.1945, Late Sonnappa alias Maddannappa and his 4 sons along with their respective family members have been in joint possession and - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:10909 RFA No. 1969 of 2022 enjoyment of all the properties allotted to the share of Sonnappa alias Maddannappa including 25 Guntas out of the total extent of 1 Acre 36 Guntas of land Sy No.31 of Dasarahalli Village, which is more fully described at the schedule and hereinafter referred to as the suit schedule property. It is submitted that on 18.11.1957 vide a registered sale deed document No.2963/1957-58 all the 4 sons of Late Sonnappa alias Maddannappa have jointly and collectively sold the suit schedule property in favor of Smt.Gokula D/o Gaadi Cheluvarayashetty of Bangalore for the legal necessity of the joint family and thereafter all of them have been jointly cultivating and so also in joint possession and enjoyment of the remaining properties allotted under the registered partition deed dated 05.11.1945. Later on, all the 4 persons have purchased the very property (suit schedule property) from Smt.Gokula under a registered sale deed dated 04.07.1962 vide registered document No.2003/1962-63. Certified copies of the sale deeds dated 18.11.1957 & 04.07.1962 are herewith produced for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. xxx 6. It is submitted that, recently the Plaintiffs noticed/smelt about the misuse of the joint family funds and mismanagement of the joint family properties by the Defendant No. 1 to 7 independently for their whims and fancies, as if they are the sole owners of the property, due to which the Plaintiffs thought fit to ask for partition of the joint family properties with the Defendant Nos. 1 to 7. Accordingly, in the First week of August 2019 the Plaintiffs - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:10909 RFA No. 1969 of 2022 demanded for partition and separate possession of their legitimate share in the joint family properties with the Defendant Nos. 1 to 7. Though they have agreed initially to effect partition of the joint family properties by meets and bounds, they did not keep up their words at the later point of time and even today they have been postponing to affect the partition. 7. It is submitted that, in pursuance of the same, the Plaintiffs have applied for certified copies of the necessary revenue documents which are essential to file a suit. After obtaining the documents, the Plaintiffs are shocked to know about the following sale transactions made by the fathers of the Plaintiffs and the Defendant Nos. 1 to 7 without their knowledge and consent and so also without there being any necessities for the joint family which are as hereunder: i. On 25.04.1978 vide a registered sale deed document No.483/1978-79, the Defendant No.5 Sri. Sonnappa and his deceased father Late Muniramaiah have jointly sold 6 Guntas of land in Sy No.31 of Dasarahalli Village in favor of the father of the Defendant Nos.8 to 10 herein namely Late Muniyappa S/o Late Akkalappa, who is presently no more. ii. On 21.08.1978 vide a registered sale deed document No.2939/1978-79, the father of the Defendant Nos.1 to 4 namely Late Annayyappa has sold 1% Guntas of land in Sy No.31 of Dasarahalli Village in favor of the father of the Defendant Nos.8 to 10 herein namely Late Muniyappa S/o Late Akkalappa. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:10909 RFA No. 1969 of 2022 iii. On 24.09.1979 vide a registered sale deed document No.2497/1979-80, the husband of the Plaintiff No.1 and the grand-father of the Plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 and so also the father of the Plaintiff Nos.5 to 9 namely Late Muninarayanappa along with Annayyappa and the fathers of the Defendant Nos. 1 to 7 namely Annayyappa and Muniramaiah have jointly sold 4 Guntas of land in Sy No.31 of Dasarahalli Village in favor of the father of the Defendant Nos.11 & 12 herein namely Late Narayanappa S/o Late Chowdaiah. iv. On 24.07.1979 vide a registered sale deed document No.2498/1979-80, the husband of the Plaintiff No.1 and the grand-father of the Plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 and so also the father of the Plaintiff Nos.5 to 9 namely Late Muninarayanappa along with Annayyappa and the fathers of the Defendant Nos. 1 to 7 namely Annayyappa and Muniramaiah have jointly sold 4 Guntas of land in Sy No.31 of Dasarahalli Village in favor of the father-in-law of the Defendant No. 13 and grand-father of the Defendant Nos. 14 to 17 herein namely Late Huchanna $/o Late Katammanavara Chowdaiah. v. On 25.04.1978 vide a registered sale deed document No.485/1978-79, the Defendant No.5 Sri.Sonnappa and his deceased father Late Muniramaiah have jointly sold 4 Guntas of land in Sy No.31 of Dasarahalli Village in favor of the father of the Defendant Nos. 18 to 21 herein namely Late Pillappa S/o Late Kallappa. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:10909 RFA No. 1969 of 2022 8. The reliefs sought for by the appellants-plaintiffs in the plaint are as under: a) To pass a judgment and decree for partition and separate possession of the Plaintiffs legitimate share in the suit schedule property and put them in separate possession and enjoyment of the same. b) To declare that the sale deed dated 25.04.1978 executed by the Defendant No.5 Sri.Sonnappa and his deceased father Late Muniramaiah in favor of the father of the Defendant Nos.8 to 10 herein namely Late Muniyappa S/o Late Akkalappa, which has been registered in the office of the Sub-registrar, Bangalore South Taluk as document No.483/1978-79 do not bind the right, title, interest and share of the Plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. c) To declare that the sale deed dated 21.08.1978 executed by the father of the Defendant Nos.1 to 4 namely Late Annayyappa in favor and of the father of the Defendant Nos.8 to 10 herein namely Late Muniyappa S/o Late Akkalappa, which has been registered in the office of the Sub-registrar, Bangalore South Taluk as document No. 2939/1978-79 do not bind the right, title, interest and share of 1 the Plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. d) To declare that the sale deed dated 24.09.1979 executed by the husband of the Plaintiff No.1 and the grandfather of the Plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 and so also the father of the Plaintiff Nos.5 to 9 namely Late Muninarayanappa along with the father of the Defendant Nos. 1 to 7 namely - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:10909 RFA No. 1969 of 2022 Annayyappa and Muniramaiah in favor of the father of the Defendant Nos.11 & 12 herein namely Late Narayanappa S/o Late Chowdaiah, wlrich has been registered in the office of the Sub-registrar, Bangalore South Taluk as document No.2497/1979-80 do not bind the right, title, interest and share of the Plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. e) To declare that the sale deed dated 24.09.1979 executed by the husband of the Plaintiff No.1 and the grandfather of the Plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 and so also the father of the Plaintiff Nos.5 to 9 namely Late Muninarayanappa along with the father of the Defendant Nos. 1 to 7 namely Annayyappa and Muniramaiah in favor of the father-in-law of the Defendant No.13 and grand-father of the Defendant Nos. 14 to 17 herein namely Late Huchanna S/o Late Katammanavara Chowdaiah, which has been registered in the office of the Sub-registrar, Bangalore South Taluk as document No. 2498/1979-80 do not bind the right, title, interest and share of the Plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. f) To declare that the sale deed dated 25.04.1978 executed by the Defendant No.5 Sri. Sonnappa and his deceased father Late Muniramaiah in favor of the father of the Defendant Nos. 18 to 21 herein namely Late Pillappa S/o Late Kallappa, which has been registered in the office of the Sub-registrar, Bangalore South Taluk as document No.485/1978-79 do not bind the right, title, interest and share of the Plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:10909 RFA No. 1969 of 2022 g) To pass such other relief/reliefs as this Hon'ble court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. h) To Award cost of the Suit, in the interest of justice and equity. SCHEDULE PROPERTY All that part and parcel of land bearing Sy No.31, measuring 25 Guntas, situated at Dasarahalli Village, HA Farm Post, KR Puram Hobli, Bangalore560 024 and bounded on the: East by : Nagawara Jakkur Main Road, West by : Property of Shivannagowda and Late D.A.Shankargowda & brothers, North by : Property of Late Bajantri Narasimhaiah, South by : Property of Late Munikempanna” 9. As can be seen from the aforesaid plaint averments and reliefs, it is the specific contention of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule property was the joint family/ancestral property of Annayyappa, Muninarayanappa, Munichowdappa and Muniramaiah, who sold the same in favour of one Smt. Gokula vide registered sale deed dated 18.11.1957 and subsequently, re-purchased the same vide registered sale deed dated 04.07.1962. It is also contended that plaintiff No.1 is the wife of the aforesaid Late Muninarayanappa, while plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 are the children of Late Venkatesh, S/o Late Muninarayanappa and plaintiff - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:10909 RFA No. 1969 of 2022 Nos.5 to 9 are the remaining children of Late Muninarayanappa. The defendant Nos.1 to 4 are said to be the children of the aforesaid Annayyappa, brother of the aforesaid Muninarayanappa, while the defendant Nos.5 to 7 are the children of Muniramaiah, brother of Muninarayanappa and that the fourth brother Munichowdappa expired as a bachelor. It is further contended that the aforesaid four brothers viz., Muninarayanappa and others along with their children sold the suit schedule property in portions vide five registered sale deeds dated 25.04.1978, 21.08.1978, 24.09.1979, 24.07.1979 and 25.04.1978 in favour of the remaining defendant Nos.8 to 21 and the said sale deeds have been assailed in the present suit by seeking declaration that the said sale deeds are not binding upon the share of the plaintiffs and for partition of their alleged share in the suit schedule property. 10. The Trial Court considered the plaint averments and came to the conclusion that the claim of the plaintiffs in challenging/assailing the alienations vide five aforesaid registered sale deeds of the years 1978-79 after lapse of 40 years from the date of their execution by filing the instant suit in the year 2019 was a frivolous, vexatious and untenable claim which was barred by - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:10909 RFA No. 1969 of 2022 limitation warranting rejection of the plaint which did not disclose any cause of action by holding as under: 8. Point No.1 :- The plaintiffs has filed this suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession of the schedule property. When the case set down for plaintiffs' evidence, at this stage, the 8th defendant has filed the present application to reject the plaint alleging that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. The father of the defendant No.8, father of the defendant No.11 and 2, grandfather of defendant No.14 to 17 and father of defendant No.18 to 21 have purchased different portions of the schedule property from the ancestors of plaintiffs along with the defendant No.5 through a registered Sale Deed dated 25.4.1978, 21.8.1978, 24.9.1979, 24.7.1979 and 25.4.1978, which fact is well within the knowledge of the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 7. Subsequent to purchase of the properties all of them have got transferred the revenue records in their favour and continued in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same as absolute owners. After a lapse of more than 35 years, the plaintiffs approached this Court by suppressing the true facts and as such the suit is barred by law of limitation and there is no cause of action to file the suit. It is further stated that, the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 7 were well aware of the fact that the suit schedule property has been - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:10909 RFA No. 1969 of 2022 sold in the year 1978 itself, but the plaintiffs knowing fully well have kept quiet for all these days and when the surrounding area of the suit schedule property has been developed and since the suit schedule property is situated near Manyatha Tech. Park, Bangalore, within the jurisdiction of BBMP and the market value of the properties are increased, with malafide intention to grab the same for wrongful gain, the present suit has been filed. 9. The learned counsel for the defendant No.8 submitted that the contents of the written statement is immaterial and the averments of the plaint is only to be considered while considering the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. The plaintiff specifically pleaded in para-7(i to v) that the defendant No.5 and his deceased father Muniramaiah jointly sold 6 guntas of land in Sy.No.31 in favour of defendants 8 to 10 under the Sale Deed dated 25.4.1978, the father of defendants 1 to 4 Late Annayyappa has sold 1 ½ guntas of land in Sy.No.31 in favour of father of defendants 8 to 10 under the Sale Deed dated 21.8.1978, the husband of plaintiff No.1 and grandfather of the plaintiffs 2 to 4 also father of the plaintiffs 5 to 9 Muninarayanappa along with Annayyappa and father of defendants 1 to 7 Annayyappa and Muniramaiah have jointly sold 4 guntas in Sy.No.31 in favour of father of the defendants 11 and 12 under registered Sale Deed dated 24.9.1979, the husband of plaintiff No.1 and - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:10909 RFA No. 1969 of 2022 grandfather of the plaintiffs 2 to 4 also father of the plaintiffs 5 to 9 Muninarayanappa along with Annayyappa and father of defendants 1 to 7 Annayyappa and Muniramaiah have jointly sold 4 guntas in Sy.No.31 in favour of father-in-law of the defendant No.13 and grandfather of defendants 14 to 17 under registered Sale Deed dated 24.7.1979 and the defendant No.5 Sonnappa and his deceased father Muniramaiah have jointly sold 4 guntas of land in Sy.No.31 under the Sale Deed dated 25.4.1978. The said fact is well within the knowledge of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 7. The purchasers got transferred the revenue records in their names and they were continued in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same as absolute owners. After a lapse of more than 35 years, the plaintiffs have approached this Court by suppressing the true facts which is barred by law of limitation and also not disclosed the cause of action. 10. In support of his arguments he has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2020) 16 SCC 601 – Raghwendra Sharan Singh Vs. Ram Prasanna Singh [dead] by LRs, wherein their lordship held that “Or. 7, R.11(d) – Application for rejection of plaint – Plaint whether barred by any law, in present case, by limitation law – Principles to be followed in considering application, reiterated – Plaint liable to be rejected if on entire and meaningful reading of averments of plaint, it is found - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:10909 RFA No. 1969 of 2022 to be not disclosing a cause of action and clear right to sue or is found to be barred by law of limitation, hence vexatious and meritless – Perusal of records and other documents, averments in written statement or contentions of defendant, immaterial – Considering averments of plaint as a whole, if suit found to be barred under Art. 59 of the Limitation Act, plaintiff cannot be allowed to circumvent that provision by means of clever drafting so as to avoid mention of those circumstances by which suit stood barred by limitation”. AIR 2019 S.C. 1430 – Raghwendra Sharan Singh Vs. Ram Prasanna Singh [dead] by LRs, wherein their lordship held that “O. 7, R.11(d) - Rejection of plaint - Ground of limitation – Suit for declaration that gift deed executed in favour of defendant is sham transaction and not binding – Filed after more than 22 years of execution of registered gift deed – Plaintiff not praying for any declaration to set aside gift deed as in that suit would be clearly barred by limitation under Art. 59 of Limitation Act – Averments in plaint cleverly drafted to bring suit within period of limitation – Plaint liable to be rejected”. (2020) 7 SCC 366 – Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali [Gajra] Dead through LRs and others, AIR 2010 Patna 189 – Bhagirath Prasad Singh Vs. Ram Narayan Rai and another, ILR 2019 KAR 4739 – M/s Durga Projects and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs. S.Rajagopala Reddy and others and ILR 2022 KAR 2231 – M/s Metropoli Overseas Ltd., Vs. H.S.Deekshit and others. On the - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:10909 RFA No. 1969 of 2022 other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the defendant No.5 and deceased Muniramaiah were not the sole owner of the property to sell the property in favour of defendants 8 to 10 and father of the defendants 1 to 4 Annayyappa and husband of the 1st plaintiff and grandfather of plaintiffs 2 to 4 and father of plaintiffs 5 to 9 Muninarayanappa and father of the defendants 1 to 7 Annayappa are not the absolute owners of the property to sell the same in favour of defendants 8 to 10, 11 and 12 and defendants 14 to 17. As on the date of execution of the said Sale Deeds, the joint family consisting of plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 7 was existing. He came to know about the illegal transaction in the first week of November, 2019 and he has filed the suit by showing the cause of action. It is further submitted that, in a suit for partition, the partition can take place at any point of time so long as family is joint. There is no limitation to file the suit. It is further submitted that, Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC application for rejection of the plaint, adjudication as to, relevant consideration therein, on the ground of suit being barred by limitation. Considering the totality of the averments made in the plaint, held, which of the articles from amongst Articles 56 and 58 of Limitation Act will apply to present case, was to be considered at appropriate stage. Issue regarding suit being barred by limitation was triable issue. Hence, the limitation will be considered only after full fledged trial, but not at this - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:10909 RFA No. 1969 of 2022 stage. It is further submitted that the plaintiffs have specifically contended in the suit that he came to know about the illegal transactions recently during November, 2019, immediately he has filed the suit. As such, there is no bar to file the suit for partition. What is the cause of action averred by the plaintiffs is sufficient. Because of only reason that the suit being barred by limitation, which is triable issue, plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold in exercise of power under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon the decisions reported in 2013(4) AKR 89 – Shivasharanappa and others Vs. Sangameshwar and others and (2018) 6 SCC 422 – Chhotanben and another Vs. Kiritbhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar and others. It is pertinent to note here that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for partition averring that the defendant No.5 and his father Muniramaiah and father of defendants 1 to 4 Annayyappa and husband of the 1st plaintiff and grandfather of plaintiffs 2 to 4 and father of plaintiffs 5 to 9 Muninarayanappa and father of defendants 1 to 7 Annayyappa, jointly sold the property in favour of defendants 8 to 10, defendants 11 and 12, defendants 14 to 17 and defendants 18 to 21 under the registered Sale Deeds dated 25.4.1978, 21.8.1978, 24.9.1979, 24.7.1979 and 25.4.1978. At the time of execution of the Sale Deeds defendant No.5 and deceased Muniramaiah were not sole owners of the properties to sell the same in favour of defendants 8 to 10. - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:10909 RFA No. 1969 of 2022 11. As per Article 58 of the Limitation Act, the period would be 3 years from the date on which the right to sue first accrues, the date on which the Sale Deeds were registered. In the instant case, the registered Sale Deeds are dated 25.4.1978, 21.8.1978, 24.9.1979, 24.7.1979 and 25.4.1978, the said period expired, which discloses that the present suit has been filed after lapse of more than 40 years. Admittedly, all the plaintiffs are well within the knowledge of the Sale Deeds executed by the defendant No.5 and his deceased father Muniramaiah, Muninarayanappa, Annayyappa. But they have not filed the suit within the limitation i.e., within 3 years from the date of their knowledge. The entire pleadings indicates that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for setting aside the alienation made by the defendant No.5 Sonnappa, Muniramaiah, Muninarayanappa and Annayyappa. When the plaintiffs are claiming joint possession and partition with respect to the schedule properties, the plaintiffs are having the knowledge about the transaction which took place in the years 1978 and 1979, but the plaintiffs strangely stated in para-14 of the plaint that the cause of action for the suit arose in the first week of November, 2019, but the plaintiffs have not averred the specific cause of action except stating that they came to know about the transactions in November, 2019. There is no cause of action disclosed by the plaintiffs to file the suit. As per Article 58 of the Limitation Act, the period would - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:10909 RFA No. 1969 of 2022 be 3 years from the date on which the right to sue first accrues, the date on which the Sale Deeds were registered. In the instant case, the Sale Deeds were registered in the year 1978 and 1979, the plaintiffs have to file the suit within 3 years i.e., within 1982 which expired on 25.4.1981 and 24.9.1982. Hence, the suit is barred by limitation as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the defendants. As per Order 7 Rule 11(a) of CPC, the plaint shall be rejected, where it does not disclose a cause of action. In the instant case, the plaintiffs not disclosed the cause of action except stating that they came to know about the transactions in the first week of November, 2019. Hence, the plaintiffs have not filed the suit by disclosing the cause of action. 12. I have perused the decisions relied by the plaintiffs and I am of the humble opinion that the ratio of the decisions are undisputed, but the facts and circumstances of the case on hand differ from the ration of the decisions. On the other hand, the decisions relied by the defendant aptly applicable to the case on hand. By considering the facts and circumstances as well as the ratio of the decisions relied by the learned counsel for the defendants, the suit is barred by limitation and also not disclosed the cause of action. In the light of the above discussion and decisions, I hold point No.1 in the affirmative. 13. Point No.2:- In view of the above discussion, I - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC:10909 RFA No. 1969 of 2022 proceed to pass the following:- ORDER I.A.No.3 filed by the defendant No.8 under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC is hereby allowed. The plaint of the plaintiffs is hereby rejected.” 11. A perusal of the impugned judgment and decree will indicate that the Trial Court has correctly and properly considered and appreciated the entire material on record and has proceeded to reject the plaint by assigning proper and correct reasons. In my considered opinion, the claim/contention of the appellants in the present appeal is devoid of merit and the same is liable to the rejected for the following reasons: (i) It is an undisputed fact that plaintiff No.1 is claimed to be the wife the Muninarayanappa, one of the vendors of the suit schedule property vide the aforesaid registered sale deeds of the year 1978-79; it is needless to state that plaintiff No.1 did not have any right, title, interest, possession or share over the suit schedule property during the lifetime of Muninarayanappa, when he executed the aforesaid sale deeds and as such, the question of her putting forth the instant claim after 40 years would clearly not arise; - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC:10909 RFA No. 1969 of 2022 it follows therefrom that since plaintiff No.1 did not have locus standi to claim a share in the suit schedule property during the lifetime of her husband, Muninarayanappa, who had alienated the same, she would clearly not be entitled to assail the said alienation or claim a share in the suit schedule property after his demise and that too after 40 years and her claim was correctly rejected by the Trial Court by passing the impugned order/judgment and decree. (ii) It is also an undisputed fact that the aforesaid Muninarayanappa had a son, Late Venkatesh and that the plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 are the children of the said Venkatesh; in other words, plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 are the grandchildren of Late Muninarayanappa, who had alienated the suit schedule property during the lifetime of his son Venkatesh in the year 1978; it is well settled that grandchildren of a male Hindu would not be entitled to claim partition of an alleged joint family property alienated by their paternal grandfather during the lifetime of their father as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Uttam Vs. Saubhag Singh and others – (2016) 4 SCC 68, wherein it was held as under: “18. Some other judgments were cited before us for the proposition that joint family property continues as such even with a sole surviving coparcener, and if a son is born - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC:10909 RFA No. 1969 of 2022 to such coparcener thereafter, the joint family property continues as such, there being no hiatus merely by virtue of the fact there is a sole surviving coparcener. Dharma Shamrao Agalawe v. Pandurang Miragu Agalawe (1988) 2 SCC 126, Sheela Devi v. Lal Chand (2006) 8 SCC 581 and Rohit Chauhan v. Surinder Singh (2013) 9 SCC 419: (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 377 were cited for this purpose. None of these judgments would take the appellant any further in view of the fact that in none of them is there any consideration of the effect of Sections 4, 8 and 19 of the Hindu Succession Act. The law, therefore, insofar as it applies to joint family property governed by the Mitakshara School, prior to the amendment of 2005, could therefore be summarised as follows: (i) When a male Hindu dies after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, having at the time of his death an interest in Mitakshara coparcenary property, his interest in the property will devolve by survivorship upon the surviving members of the coparcenary (vide Section 6). (ii) To proposition (i), an exception is contained in Section 30 Explanation of the Act, making it clear that notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, the interest of a male Hindu in Mitakshara coparcenary property is property that can be disposed of by him by will or other testamentary disposition. (iii) A second exception engrafted on proposition (i) is contained in the proviso to Section 6, which states that if such a male Hindu had died leaving behind a - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC:10909 RFA No. 1969 of 2022 female relative specified in Class I of the Schedule or a male relative specified in that class who claims through such female relative surviving him, then the interest of the deceased in the coparcenary property would devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, and not by survivorship. (iv) In order to determine the share of the Hindu male coparcener who is governed by Section 6 proviso, a partition is effected by operation of law immediately before his death. In this partition, all the coparceners and the male Hindu's widow get a share in the joint family property. (v) On the application of Section 8 of the Act, either by reason of the death of a male Hindu leaving self- acquired property or by the application of Section 6 proviso, such property would devolve only by intestacy and not survivorship. (vi) On a conjoint reading of Sections 4, 8 and 19 of the Act, after joint family property has been distributed in accordance with Section 8 on principles of intestacy, the joint family property ceases to be joint family property in the hands of the various persons who have succeeded to it as they hold the property as tenants-in- common and not as joint tenants. 19. Applying the law to the facts of this case, it is clear that on the death of Jagannath Singh in 1973, the joint family property which was ancestral property in the hands of Jagannath Singh and the other coparceners, devolved by succession under Section 8 of the Act. This - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC:10909 RFA No. 1969 of 2022 being the case, the ancestral property ceased to be joint family property on the date of death of Jagannath Singh, and the other coparceners and his widow held the property as tenants-in-common and not as joint tenants. This being the case, on the date of the birth of the appellant in 1977 the said ancestral property, not being joint family property, the suit for partition of such property would not be maintainable. The appeal is consequently dismissed with no order as to costs.” (iii) In the instant case, as stated supra, plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 claim to be the grandchildren of Muninarayanappa, who had alienated the suit schedule property in the year 1978-79 during the lifetime of their father Venkatesh, S/o Muninarayanappa and in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Uttam’s case supra, the plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 did not have any right, title, interest, possession or share over the suit schedule property of their grandfather during the lifetime of their father and consequently, the Trial Court correctly, rejected the claim of the appellants-plaintiffs on this ground also. (iv) A perusal of the plaint will clearly indicate that the plaintiffs themselves admit and contend that Muninarayanappa and his brothers had alienated the suit schedule property as long back as in the year 1957 when the plaintiff Nos.2 to 9 had not even been - 29 - NC: 2025:KHC:10909 RFA No. 1969 of 2022 born; it follows therefrom that the plaintiff Nos.2 to 9 obviously could not have put forth any claim over the suit schedule property at that point in time in the year 1957 when Muninarayanappa and his brothers had sold the suit schedule property in favour of one Smt.Gokula vide registered sale deed dated 18.11.1957; further, once the suit schedule property alleged to be a joint family property had left the hands of the alleged joint family of Muninarayanappa and his brothers in the year 1957 when the plaintiffs were not born, merely because Muninarayanappa and his brothers had re- purchased the suit schedule properties in the year 1962 vide registered sale deed dated 04.07.1962, the property would neither become nor par-take the nature of a joint family/ancestral property so as to enable the alleged heirs of Muninarayanappa to put forth a claim over the property, that too after 40 years from 1978-79 when Muninarayanappa had alienated the property and consequently, viewed from this angle also, the Trial Court rightly rejected the claim of the plaintiffs. (v) The plaint averments would also indicate that except a vague and bald averment at paragraph No.6 that the plaintiffs came to know about the sale deeds of the year 1978-79 only in the - 30 - NC: 2025:KHC:10909 RFA No. 1969 of 2022 year 2019, the long, inordinate and unexplained delay and latches of 40 years on the part of the plaintiffs in approaching the Court has not been explained by the plaintiffs which is sufficient to come to the conclusion that the claim put forth by the plaintiffs is false, vexatious, frivolous and untenable which has been correctly nipped in the bud at the threshold by the Trial Court by passing the impugned order; in this context, it is relevant to state that the five sale deeds during the period 1978-79 were executed by Muninarayanappa and his brothers along with some of their children and heirs who are arrayed as defendant Nos. 1 to 7 in the suit and very cleverly, it is only the non-signatories to the aforesaid sale deeds who have filed the instant suit thereby establishing that the plaintiffs have put forth false and frivolous claim which has been rejected by the Trial Court by correctly coming to the conclusion that the challenge in the year 2019 to the sale deeds of 1978-79 is clearly barred by limitation. Under these circumstances also, I am of the view that the Trial Court was fully justified in passing the impugned order/judgment and decree which does not warrant interference in the present appeal. - 31 - NC: 2025:KHC:10909 RFA No. 1969 of 2022 (vi) In the case of Uma Devi and Ors Vs. Anand Kumar and Ors – 2025 INSC 434, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellants before this Court are defendants in a suit for partition filed by the plaintiffs (respondent nos. 1 to 5 herein) in the year 2023 under O.S. No. 6768/2023. The parties will be referred to as their position in the Trial Court. Date: 2025.04.02 18:42:11 IST Reason: 3. The defendants moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘CPC’), seeking return of the plaint on the grounds that the suit was not maintainable as it was barred by limitation as well as on other grounds. The Trial Court allowed the application and dismissed the suit. 4. Thereafter, plaintiffs (Respondent Nos.1-5 before us) filed an appeal before High Court under Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC where High Court (hereinafter ‘appellate court’) vide order dated 08.01.2025 held that there were triable issues in the case and it could not be dismissed merely on an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and consequently allowed the appeal, remanding the matter back to the Trial Court. 5. This case pertains to a civil dispute concerning an immovable property situated at Pattangere Village, Kengeri, Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. The plaintiffs and defendants belong to the same larger family. - 32 - NC: 2025:KHC:10909 RFA No. 1969 of 2022 6. The original owner of the property was Boranna, who passed away leaving behind four sons: Nanjundappa, Siddappa, Basappa, and Shivanna. The suit for partition was filed by the grandchildren of Shivanna on 16.10.2023, alleging that the family owned ancestral joint immovable property and that their legitimate share had been denied. Consequently, they sought partition, separate possession and allotment of their legitimate share. 7. The four sons of Boranna, namely Nanjundappa, Siddappa, Basappa and Shivanna, had their respective families. Shivanna had five children namely, Mangalamma, Maribasamma, Drakshayanamma, Shadaksharaiah and Varaprasada. While Basappa had six children namely, Ganganna, Panchaksharaiah, Mandevappa, Shanthappa, Nagarju and Prakash. Nanjundappa and Siddappa also had a family of their own. The plaintiffs are the children of Mangalamma. The Defendants in the suit represent the remaining family (the appellants herein are the representatives of Shanthappa). 8. The defendants raised a primary objection, asserting that the property, originally owned by Boranna, had already been partitioned by way of an oral partition in the year 1968 amongst his four sons, through a family settlement. We have gone through the revenue records, as placed before us, and it is evident that this settlement was indeed acted upon. The revenue records indicate the names of each of Boranna’s four sons and also that the property had been mutated in their respective names, the reason assigned for the change in the revenue records is the family partition of - 33 - NC: 2025:KHC:10909 RFA No. 1969 of 2022 the year 1968. Additionally, the defendants contended that, based on the terms of the family settlement, the daughter in law of Shivanna and other family members had disposed their property through registered sale deeds executed as far back as 1978. It is therefore clear that the plaintiffs had full knowledge of this transaction. 9. The defendants further argued that the plaintiffs were effectively challenging a sale deed executed by their own aunt. Since the suit for partition was filed without contesting the sale deed, that itself was legally untenable. Moreover, a registered sale deed constitutes constructive notice to the world unless it is a case of fraud, coercion, or minority and therefore there has to be a presumption in law that the plaintiffs had knowledge of the sale deed. 10. The Trial Court, considering these facts, allowed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and dismissed the suit, finding no cause of action for filing the suit. However, the appellate court found that there were triable issues that required consideration. The appellate court was of the opinion that the plaintiffs had a legitimate claim over the joint family properties, and in the absence of any notice to the plaintiffs regarding the partition, the suit was remanded back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration. 11. The sole argument advanced by the respondents/plaintiffs is that the suit was only for partition, filed in the year 2023 and was within the limitation period as the limitation will be counted from the date of their knowledge of the sale deed. However, upon examining the pleadings before the Trial Court and appellate court, it is - 34 - NC: 2025:KHC:10909 RFA No. 1969 of 2022 evident that the plaintiff failed to address the crucial question of when they became aware of the registered sale deeds. If they had prior knowledge of the sale deeds, they failed to specify the exact date of such knowledge. Additionally, the pleadings suggest suppression of essential facts by the plaintiffs. 12. In the case at hand, partition took place way back in the year 1968, which is evident from the revenue record entries. The suit is filed in the year 2023, i.e. after a period of 55 years. Further, many of the family members had executed registered sale deeds in the year 1978. These sale deeds have been attached, and on perusal it is observed that these were in fact registered sale deeds. A registered document provides a complete account of a transaction to any party interested in the property. This Court in the case of Suraj Lamp Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana & Anr. (2012) 1 SCC 656 held as under: “Registration of a document gives notice to the world that such a document has been executed. 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 - 35 - NC: 2025:KHC:10909 RFA No. 1969 of 2022 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”. 13. Applying this settled principle of law, 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 the year 2023) of the plaintiffs was prima facie barred by law. The plaintiffs cannot reignite their rights after sleeping on them for 45 years. 14. The learned senior counsel for the defendants/appellants, Mr. Sundaram, relied upon the decision of this Court in Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust & Ors. v. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle & Anr. (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3844) to substantiate the contention that the suit was barred by limitation. It was observed as follows: “16. When a portion of the property has been conveyed by court auction and registered in the first instance and when another portion has been conveyed by a registered sale deed in 1952, there is a constructive notice from the date of registration and the presumption under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, comes into operation. The possession, in the present case, - 36 - NC: 2025:KHC:10909 RFA No. 1969 of 2022 also has been rested with the appellant before several decades, which operates as notice of title. 17. XXX 18. Continuing further with the plea of limitation, the Courts below have held that 23 (1977) 4 SCC 467 the question of the suit being barred by limitation can be decided at the time of trial as the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts. Though the question of limitation generally is mixed question of law and facts, when upon meaningful reading of the plaint, the court can come to a conclusion that under the given circumstances, after dissecting the vices of clever drafting creating an illusion of cause of action, the suit is hopelessly barred and the plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11”. 15. In Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal (2017) 13 SCC 174, this court laid down the scope of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC : “The plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 if conditions enumerated in the said provision are fulfilled. It is needless to observe that the power under Order VII Rule 11, CPC can be exercised by the Court at any stage of the suit. The relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding the application are the averments of the plaint only. If on an entire and meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing any right to sue, the court should exercise power under Order VII Rule 11, CPC. Since the power conferred on the Court to terminate civil action at the threshold is drastic, the conditions enumerated under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC to the exercise of power of rejection of plaint have to be strictly adhered to. The averments of the plaint have to be read as a whole to find out whether the averments disclose a cause of action or whether the suit is barred by any law. It is needless to observe that the question as to whether the suit is barred by any law, would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The averments in the written statement as well as the contentions of - 37 - NC: 2025:KHC:10909 RFA No. 1969 of 2022 the defendant are wholly immaterial while considering the prayer of the defendant for rejection of the plaint. Even when, the allegations made in the plaint are taken to be correct as a whole on their face value, if they show that the suit is barred by any law, or do not disclose cause of action, the application for rejection of plaint can be entertained and the power under Order V11 Rule 11 of CPC can be exercised. If clever drafting of the plaint has created the illusion of a cause of action, the court will nip it in the bud at the earliest so that bogus litigation will end at the earlier stage”. 16. In Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (2020) 7 SCC 366, it is stated as under – “The underlying object of Order VII Rule 11 (a) is that if in a suit, no cause of action is disclosed, or the suit is barred by limitation under Rule 11 (d), the Court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in the suit. In such a case, it would be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation, so that further judicial time is not wasted”. 17. In our considered opinion, the Trial Court had rightly allowed the application of the defendants/appellants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, holding that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was a meaningless litigation, that it did not disclose a proper cause of action and was barred by limitation. There were thus no justifiable reasons for the appellate court to have remanded the matter to the Trial Court. 18. The suit was indeed barred by limitation. Consequently, the impugned order dated 08.01.2025 passed by the High Court is set aside, and both these appeals are hereby allowed. 19. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.” - 38 - NC: 2025:KHC:10909 RFA No. 1969 of 2022 12. Upon re-appreciation, re-evaluation and re- consideration of the entire material on record, I am of the view that the Trial Court was fully justified in passing the impugned order/judgment and decree which cannot be said to be capricious, perverse or illegal warranting interference by this Court in the present appeal. 13. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BS/MDS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8