- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29842 RFA No. 154 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.154 OF 2024 (PAR) BETWEEN: SMT. NALINAKSHI M.R. D/O LATE M. RAMAKRISHNAIAH, W/O MUDDAIAH S.G. AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NO.238, 17TH MAIN, 4TH BLOCK, NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560096. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. RADHA R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. PUTTAGANGAMMA C.H. W/O LATE M. RAMAKRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, R/AT NO.357, 18TH MAIN, 4TH BLOCK, NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560096. 2. SRI M.R. KRISHNAMURTHY S/O LATE M. RAMAKRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT NO.17, 1ST MAIN, MUNIKONDAPPA LAYOUT, SHIVAPPA GARDEN, NAGASANDRA POST, BENGALURU-560073. 3. SMT. RAJESHWARI A.J. W/O LATE YATISH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29842 RFA No. 154 of 2024 4. Y. NAYAN S/O LATE YATISH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, 5. KUMARI YUKTHA D/O LATE YATISH, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, THE RESPONDENT 3 TO 5 ARE R/AT NO.357, 18TH MAIN, 4TH BLOCK, NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560096. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI C.R. VENKATESH FOR C/R-2; R-1, R-3 TO R-5 ARE SERVED) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.12.2023 PASSED ON I.A.NO.III IN O.S.NO.972/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE NELAMANGALA, ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.III FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a) AND (d) OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT The regular first appeal is filed by the plaintiff assailing the legality and correctness of the order dated 13.12.2023 passed on I.A. No.III in O.S. No.972/2022 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Nelamangala (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’ for short), whereby the application filed by defendant No.2 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29842 RFA No. 154 of 2024 under Order VII Rules 11(a) and 11(d) CPC was allowed, and the plaint was rejected. 2. Facts of the case: Plaintiff instituted a suit for partition and separate possession, claiming 1/3rd share out of ½ share in the suit schedule properties, and further sought a declaration that the registered partition deed dated 26.04.2003 is null and void and not binding upon her. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that during the lifetime of M. Ramakrishnaiah, defendant No.2 and late M. R. Yathish, who is the brother of the plaintiff, husband of defendant No.3 and father of defendant Nos.4 and 5, have partitioned the suit properties without her knowledge. It is averred that the plaintiff became aware of the partition deed only on 11.09.2022 and discovered that the revenue records have been mutated in the name of defendant Nos.2 and 3. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29842 RFA No. 154 of 2024 4. Defendant No.2 filed I.A. No.III under Order VII Rules 11(a) and 11(d) CPC seeking rejection of the plaint contending that the suit is barred by limitation as the registered partition deed was executed on 26.04.2003 and the suit was filed only in 2022, after a lapse of nearly 19 years. The plaintiff opposed the said application. 5. The Trial Court after considering the pleadings allowed the application and rejected the plaint. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the Trial Court erred in rejecting the plaint at the threshold. The issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and ought to have been decided only after trial. It is also submitted that the procedural irregularity was committed by the Trial Court in not dealing with the counter claim filed by defendant No.3. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29842 RFA No. 154 of 2024 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents justifies the order passed by the Trial Court and submits that the suit is barred by limitation on the face of the plaint averments. As per the settled law, where the plaint itself discloses that the claim is barred by limitation, it is permissible to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC without requiring trial. It is submitted that there is no material allegation of fraud or misrepresentation in the plaint regarding the execution of the partition deed. 9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the order passed by the Trial Court under Order VII Rules 11(a) and 11(d) CPC rejecting the plaint on the ground of limitation warrants any interference by this Court?” 10. It is undisputed that the registered partition deed was executed on 26.04.2003. From a plain reading of the plaint, especially paragraph Nos.7 and 9, it is clear - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29842 RFA No. 154 of 2024 that the plaintiff has admitted the execution and effect of the said partition deed, including the change in the revenue records. The suit for declaration challenging the registered partition deed was filed only in 2022, i.e., nearly 19 years later. The cause of action pleaded, the knowledge on 11.09.2022, is vague and unsubstantiated and an afterthought. 11. The Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma & Ors.1 has held that the protection of daughter's rights under the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 does not affect partitions already effected by registered instruments or Court decrees before 20.12.2004. 12. In the present case, the registered partition deed of 2003 is valid and binding document and stands protected under the said judgment. There is no allegation of fraud, misrepresentation or incapacity that would 1 (2020) 9 SCC 1 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29842 RFA No. 154 of 2024 extend or postpone the period of limitation. The law is well settled that if, from the averments in the plaint alone, it is evident that the suit is barred by limitation, the plaint can be rejected at the threshold without conducting a trial. The Trial Court has rightly applied this principle in the present case warranting no interference by this Court. 13. The contention regarding non-consideration of the counter claim of defendant No.3 is irrelevant at the instance of the plaintiff. Defendant No.3 has not preferred any independent appeal against the rejection of the plaint. Hence, the procedural irregularity, if any, does not aid the plaintiff-appellant. 14. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rules 11(a) and 11(d) CPC, which is on sound reasoning and accordingly, the point framed for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29842 RFA No. 154 of 2024 ORDER i. The Regular first Appeal is hereby dismissed. ii. The order dated 13.12.2023 passed on I.A. No.III in O.S. No.972/2022 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Nelamangala is hereby confirmed. Sd/- ______________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA SHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25