- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48464 CRP No. 53 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 53 OF 2022 (IO) BETWEEN: JOHN AEE PETER S/O M. PETER AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT KAGGADASAPURA C V RAMAN NAGARA POST, NANJAPPA REDDY LAYOUT BENGALURU - 560 093 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VENKATARAMANA K.S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. NARASIMHAIAH S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT HEGGADIHALLI THUBUGERE HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203. 2. SRI. NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT NANDIBETTA CROSS SEEGEHALLI VILLAGE THUBUGERE HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK - 561 203. 3. SRI. SURESH S/O KADEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48464 CRP No. 53 of 2022 R/AT NANDIBETTA CROSS SEEGEHALLI VILLAGE THUBUGERE HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK - 561 203. 4. SRI. GANGAHDAR S/O LATE NRASIMAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT HEGGADIHALLI VILLAGE THUBUGERE HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK - 561 203. 5. SRI. DANIAL S/O POOJAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT HEGGADIHALLI VILLAGE THUBUGERE HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK - 561 203. 6. SRI. MANJUNATH S/O POOJAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT QUIRA, HEGGADIHALLI VILLAGE THUBUGERE HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK - 561 203. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHESH A.V, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. V. ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R3 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; VIDE ORDER DATED 09.11.2023, NOTICE TO R2, R4 TO R6 IS DSPENSED WITH) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11.11.2021 PASSED ON I.A. IN OS.NO.346/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DODDABALLAPURA, REJECTING THE I.A NO.3 FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(d) OF THE CPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48464 CRP No. 53 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.Venkataramana K. S., learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Mahesh H. V., learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Anand V., learned counsel for respondent No.1. 2. Defendant No.6 in O.S.No.346/2020 is the revision petitioner challenging the order of rejection of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘CPC’ for short) by order dated 11.11.2021. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for the disposal of the present revision petition are as under: 3.1. A suit in O.S.No.346/2020 came to be filed with the following prayer in the respect of the following suit properties: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48464 CRP No. 53 of 2022 PRAYER Wherefore, the plaintiff most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass a judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants: a. Declare that the plaintiff is a absolute owner of the suit schedule property in possession. b. Declare the partition deed dated 8.08.2003 registered in the office of registrar Doddaballapura is vitiated by playing fraud and not binding on the plaintiff. c. Declare that the sale deed dated 17.07.2003 registered in the office of the sub-registrar Doddaballapura executed by in favour of Smt.Sheela has a null and void. d. For consequential relief of permanent injunction restraint the defendant from interfere with the suit schedule said property. e. For any other relief or reliefs as deem fit in the circumstances and situated of the case.” SCHEDULE All that part and parcel of the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.94 measuring 1 acre situated at Heggadahalli village, Thubugere Hobli, Doddaballapura taluk and bounded on: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48464 CRP No. 53 of 2022 East by: Basappa’s land West by: Grama Tana North by: Narayanappa’s land South by: Chandrashekara’s land 3.2. Plaintiff claimed the suit relief by contending that Venkatappa was granted one acre of the land in Sy.No.94 situated at Heggadehalli Village, Thubugere Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk in proceedings on 01.03.1985 by regularizing the unauthorised cultivation. 3.3. Upset price was waived on the ground that said Venkatappa belonged to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Committee. 3.4. After the said grant, Venkatappa was in actual possession over the suit property and he died on 02.04.2008. 3.5. He left behind plaintiff to succeed his estate and wife of Venkatappa by name Narasamma predeceased Venkatappa. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48464 CRP No. 53 of 2022 3.6. It is further contented that on 18.02.2003, an alleged partition has taken place between the brothers and sisters-in-law of Venkatappa and there was a fraud played in respect of the said partition. Therefore, plaintiff had sought for declaratory relief in respect of the suit property ignoring the alleged registered partition deed. 4. Defendant No.6 being the husband of the purchaser of the suit property, entered appearance before the Trial Court and filed written statement denying the plaint averments in toto, inter alia filing an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground of limitation. 5. Learned Trial Judge after entertaining the objections of the plaintiff, rejected the said application by the impugned order. 6. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court, in this revision. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48464 CRP No. 53 of 2022 7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contented that the approach of the Trial Court is incorrect as admittedly there is a challenge as to the cancellation of the registered partition deed and suit being filed in the year 2020, is per se barred by limitation and thus, rejection of the application has resulted in miscarriage of justice. 8. In support of his arguments, he places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Raghwendra Sharan Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead) by LRs in Civil Appeal No.2960/2019 dated 13.03.2019. 9. He invited the attention of this Court to paragraph No.8 of the judgment wherein it has been held as under: “8. Now, so far as the application on behalf of the original plaintiff and even the observations made by the learned trial Court as well as the High Court that - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48464 CRP No. 53 of 2022 the question with respect to the limitation is a mixed question of law and facts, which can be decided only after the parties lead the evidence is concerned, as observed and held by this Court in the cases of Sham Lal alias Kuldip (supra); N.V. Srinivas Murthy (supra) as well as in the case of Ram Prakash Gupta (supra), considering the averments in the plaint if it is found that the suit is clearly barred by law of limitation, the same can be rejected in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC.” 10. He also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra)(D) Their LRs and Others in Civil Appeal No.9519/2019 dated 09.07.2020. 11. He specifically invited the attention of this Court to paragraph No.15.8 wherein it has been held as under: “15.08. The delay of over 5 and ½ years after the alleged cause of action arose in 2009, shows that the suit was clearly barred by limitation as per Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The suit was instituted on 15.12.2014, even though the alleged cause of action arose in 2009, when the last cheque was delivered to the Plaintiffs. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48464 CRP No. 53 of 2022 The Plaintiffs have failed to discharge the onus of proof that the suit was filed within the period of limitation. The plaint is therefore, liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC. Reliance is placed on the recent judgment of this Court rendered in Raghwendra Sharan Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead) by LRs.15 wherein this Court held the suit would be barred by limitation under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, if it was filed beyond three years of the execution of the registered deed.” 12. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff supports the impugned order. 13. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 14. On such perusal of the material on record, admittedly, plaintiff is not a party to the alleged registered partition. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48464 CRP No. 53 of 2022 15. Whether at all it would bind the plaintiff also is a mixed question of law and facts which needs to be adjudicated in the trial. Suit is one for declaration as could be seen from the prayer column as referred to supra. 16. Cause of action paragraph in the suit reads as under: “It is submitted that the cause of action for the suit arose on 02.04.2008 when the plaintiffs father expired and succeeded to his estate and later on 18.02.2003 when the alleged partition deed was fraudulently executed and later on 27.07.2003 when a sale deed was executed by Poojappa in favour of one Smt.Sheela and on 12.08.2020 when the plaintiff came to know about the fraudulent creation of documents and subsequently thereafter with the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction both territorial and pecuniary to disposes of the matter.” 17. There cannot be any dispute as to the principles of law enunciated in the cases of Raghwendra Sharan Singh and Dahiben supra. But on facts, the principles - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48464 CRP No. 53 of 2022 of law are to be distinguished in the case on hand inasmuch as the averments made in the cause of action paragraph and other paragraphs of the plaint vis-a-vis the contention taken by defendant No.6 needs full-fledged trial. 18. In other words, the suit cannot be dismissed on the ground of limitation as facts in the case on hand cannot be deduced by mathematical precision that the suit is barred by limitation. 19. Question of limitation would definitely be an issue to be raised in the suit and parties are required to place necessary evidence to establish their case before the Trial Court in the suit. 20. Under such circumstances, treating the limitation issue as a preliminary issue so as to reject the plaint cannot be countenanced in law and thus, the impugned order needs no interference in the case on hand. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48464 CRP No. 53 of 2022 21. Accordingly, following: ORDER Revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3