- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18374 CRP No. 100058 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 100058 OF 2020 (-) BETWEEN: MRS. ANJU SARAF W/O. AJAYA SARAF, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RAI BAHADUR SETH, SHREERAM NARASINGDAS PVT. LTD., R.B.S.S.N, SANKALAPUR IRON ORE MINES, D.NO.1499/1, POST BOX NO.38, KARIGANUR POST, HOSAPETE TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583201. REP. BY HER GPA HOLDER, G. JINADATHA, S/O. G. PADMARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, OCC : RTD. AS MANAGER, R/O : J.P. NAGAR, BALLARI ROAD, HOSAPETE-583201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K. RAGHAVENDRA RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. T. RAVIKANTHA S/O. LATE SRI. T. DRUVAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, C/O. R/O. K.T. MALLAMMA Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.12.19 16:09:52 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18374 CRP No. 100058 of 2020 BALAUNSI, KUDLIGI ROAD, HANEKAL POST, HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI TALUK, BALLARI-583 224. 2. SMT. P. BAGYA W/O. T. RAJU AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O : 33RD WARD, MYSAKERI, HOSAPETE TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583 201. 3. SMT. JYOTHI W/O. T. RAJENDRA MAJOR, R/O. HOUSE NO.55, 32ND WARD, NEAR KOTTESHANKAR LINGA TEMPLE, TALAVARKERI, HOSAPETE TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583 201. 4. SRI. T. SRIKANTH S/O. LATE SRI. T. DRUVAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O : 33RD WARD, MYSAKERI, HOSAPETE TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583 201. 5. T. ANNAPPA NAYAKA S/O. LATE T. DRUVAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O : 33RD WARD, MYSAKERI, HOSAPETE TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583 201. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18374 CRP No. 100058 of 2020 6. SMT. P. SWOMAYA W/O. MANJUNATH POOJAR, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O : DOOR NO.2-108, 7TH WARD, NEAR VALMIKI CIRCLE, BAGYA NAGAR, KOPPAL, KOPPAL TALUK, KOPPAL DISTRICT-583 238. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DAYANAND M. BANDI, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R6) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, PRAYING TO CALL FOR AND EXAMINE THE RECORDS IN O.S. NO.45/2018 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS HOSAPETE AND FURTHER SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, HOSAPETE IN O.S. NO.45/2018 ON I.A. NO.5 DATED 03.07.2019 AND ALLOW THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION WITH COSTS AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18374 CRP No. 100058 of 2020 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. This petition is filed assailing the order rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (‘Code’). 3. Defendant No.6 the purchaser of the property filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code to reject the plaint on the premise that the suit is time barred. 4. The Trial Court did not accept the plea and rejected the application. 5. The suit is one for partition and separate possession. The plaintiff claims that he has 1/6th share in the suit schedule properties. Relationship of the parties is not in dispute. Plaintiff is the son of one Dhruvakumar and defendants No.1 to 5 are plaintiff’s siblings. Defendant No.6 is the purchaser from Dhruvakumar. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18374 CRP No. 100058 of 2020 6. In plaint paragraph No.2 the plaintiffs has averred that on 05.10.1990 one Tarihalli Bharamappa @ Dhasappa who is uncle of the plaintiff’s father executed a partition deed dated 05.10.1990 in favour of plaintiff’s father Tarihalli Dhruvakumar along with his cousins. 7. It is stated that in the said partition survey No.180/2 measuring 6 acres and 24 cents out of 12.24 acres and remaining extent is allotted to the plaintiff’s father’s cousins. 8. Suit is filed in respect of the aforementioned property on the premise that the plaintiff came to know about the registered sale deed in respect of the suit property in the year 2018. The plaintiff has pleaded that he was not aware of the sale deed executed by his father in the year 2006. 9. Learned counsel appearing for defendant No.6/purchaser would contend that the alleged partition of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18374 CRP No. 100058 of 2020 1990 is not established, as such, the suit is time barred as the property sold by the plaintiff’s father in the year 2006. It is his contention that plaintiff has no share in the properties and apart from that assuming that he had a share in the properties, since the property is sold in the year 2006, the suit is filed in the year 2018 is time barred. 10. In addition to that, learned counsel for the petitioner would also urge that the suit without a prayer for cancellation of the sale deed is not maintainable. 11. Learned counsel would also urge that the suit for partial partition is not maintainable as the plaintiff himself has stated in the plaint that some of properties are not yet included in the suit for partition. In support of the contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Smt. Umadevi and Others Vs. Sri Anand Kumar and Others1, MD. Noorul 1 2025 (5) SCC 198 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18374 CRP No. 100058 of 2020 Hoda Vs. Bibi Raifunnisa and Others2 and the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in G. Nagaraju Vs. Ramesh and Others3. 12. Referring to the judgment of Umadevi, supra, it is urged that the suit is time barred and the plaint ought to have been rejected on the premise that the property is sold in the year 2006 and the suit is for the year 2018. 13. The Court has considered the contentions with reference to the aforementioned judgment. 14. In Umadevi, supra, the suit is filed 55 years after the sale deed. From the facts narrated in the said judgment, it appears that the suit is filed challenging the sale deed by the persons who were not born when the property was sold. In this context, this Court has held that the suit is time barred. 2 1996 (7) SCC 767 3 2023 SCC OnLine Kar.19 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18374 CRP No. 100058 of 2020 15. In the instant case, if the plaintiff avers that in the partition between the plaintiff’s father and his uncle the properties allotted to the plaintiff’s father’s share. 16. It is an indication that the plaintiff is contending that the suit property is the joint family ancestors property. If such a plea is established, will the plaintiff share in the property by reason of his birth in the family. 17. Admittedly, the plaintiff is not a party to the sale deed of the year 2006. Whether the plaintiff had knowledge of the sale transaction of 2006 or not is a matter of trial. The plaintiff averred that he came to know about the sale transaction in the year 2018. The limitation relating to the mixed question of law and fact, the plaintiff is entitled to have a trial to establish his contention that he came to know about the transaction in the year 2018. Under the circumstances, the judgment in Umadevi, (supra) does not come to the aid of the plaintiff. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18374 CRP No. 100058 of 2020 18. The further contention based on the judgment of MD. Noorul Hoda, (supra), also does not come to the aid of the plaintiff as in the said case, the Court has held that the person must seek a declaration within three years from the date of cause of action. In the instant case, the plaintiff not being a party to the sale transaction, there is no need to seek for the declaration. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also rely upon the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in G. Nagarju, (supra), contend that the case of the plaintiff is hit by acquiescence on the premise that he has not challenged the sale deed which was executed in the year 2006. It is noticed that the judgment in the G. Nagaraju, (supra), was rendered in a Regular Second Appeal i.e. where the parties had an opportunity to give evidence on all factual matters. At the stage of Order VII Rule 7 of the Code the evidence is not yet led. Hence, the contention that the plaint had to be rejected on the premise that the plaintiff had acquiescence, the sale transaction cannot be - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18374 CRP No. 100058 of 2020 accepted. Whether he had acquiescenced the sale transaction is a matter of evidence and that requires trial. 20. The last contention relating to non-joinder of all the properties is concerned, it is to be observed that it is not a ground for urging the dismissal of the suit at this stage. The Court is of the view that the opportunity should be given to the plaintiff to include all the family properties before proceeding with the suit. Despite the plaintiff being put to notice to include other properties, if the plaintiff does not include those properties, then only the suit can be dismissed. 21. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CHS CT-MCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 0