- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40557 CRP No. 75 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 75 OF 2023 (IO) BETWEEN: SRI. M PURUSHOTHAM S/O LATE SRI MUNIYAPPA @ ABHAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/A 1649, 2ND CROSS, KAMASKHAMMA LAYOUT YELAHANKA TOWN BENGALURU - 560 064. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAVEENKUMAR HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. LOKESHNAIK S/O LATE SRI CHANDRA NAIK AGED 38 YEARS R/A MELINANAYAKARANDAHALLI VILLAGE ANTHARAHALLI POST THUBAGERE HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL - 561 203. 2. SMT. SHANTHI BAI W/O LATE SRI CHANDRA NAIK AGED 58 YEARS R/A MELINANAYAKARANDAHALLI VILLAGE ANTHARAHALLI POST Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40557 CRP No. 75 of 2023 THUBAGERE HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL - 561 203. 3. SMT. ANANDA BAI W/O NARASIMHA NAIK AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/A NO.49, THIBBEGIWADANADADDI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HARISANDRA POST RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 562 128. 4. SRI. RAMAMURTHY S/O LATE SRI V KRISHNAPPA AGED 51 YEARS R/A MELINANAYAKARANDAHALLI VILLAGE ANTHARAHALLI POST THUBAGERE HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL - 561 203 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MURTHY NAYAK B.L, ADVOCATE FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 08.02.2023, NOTICE TO R2 TO R4 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.10.2022 PASSED ON I.A. IN OS.NO.336/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DODDABALLAPURA. REJECTING THE IA FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 (d) OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40557 CRP No. 75 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.Praveen Kumar Hiremath, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Murthy Nayak B. L., learned counsel for respondent No.1. 2. Purchaser of one of the suit items of the properties who is arraigned as defendant No.4 in O.S.No.336/2018 filed the written statement and Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC application before the Trial Court for rejection of the plaint. 3. Said application was contested and was rejected by the Trial Court. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant No.4 is before this Court, in this revision petition. 5. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40557 CRP No. 75 of 2023 5.1. A suit for partition and separate possession came to be filed by respondent No.1 against four defendants with the following prayer in respect of following immovable properties (hereinafter referred to as suit properties): “WHEREFORE, the plaintiff prays before this Hon'ble Court to be pleased to pass judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff, as against the defendants by granting the following relief:- A) To effect partition in suit schedule property taking into consideration its location, divide and allotting 1/3rd share and to put the plaintiff in separate possession in his said 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties and forwarded preliminary decree for effecting partition by the metes and bounds in terms of preliminary decree. In the event the defendants fail to comply with the direction of this Hon'ble Court it is further pray that this Hon'ble Court shall effect partition by metes and bounds and part with plaintiff 1/3rd share of the schedule properties and put him to separate possession of the same. B) To declare that two sale deeds executed by the Chandra Naik in favour of K. Ramamurthy on 16/06/1998, in vide registered Document No.734/98-99 and 10/09/1998, in vide registered Document No.1586/98-99, sale deed executed by the K. Ramamurthy in favour of Supriya (Supriya steels) on 27/12/2002, in vide registered Document No.3015/02-03, the sale deed executed by Supriya (Supriya steels) in favour of M. Purushotham on 01- 07-2011, in vide document No.2294/11-12, in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40557 CRP No. 75 of 2023 respect of the suit schedule properties, are not binding on the plaintiff 1/3rd share. C) To grant and further hold an enquiry for means profit and pass such other order/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case including costs, in the interest of justice and equity. SCHEDULE ITEM NO.1 All that piece and parcel of the agricultural land bearing No. 40, New No.40/3 measuring 1 acre 15 guntas, situated Melinanaykarandahalli Village, Thubagere Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk, Bangalore rural District. Bounded on the:- East by :Road, West by :Land in Sy. No.36/1, North by :property belongs to Narayana Naik, South by :Property belongs to Krishna Naik. SCHEDULE ITEM NO.1 All that piece and parcel of the agricultural land bearing Sy. No. (36/1) new no. 36/3 measuring 0-30 Guntas, situated Melinanaykarandahalli Village, Thubagere Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk, Bangalore Rural District. Bounded on the:- East by: Land in Sy. No.40 extent of 1 Acre 15 guntas West by property belongs to Narasimhaiah, North by: property belongs to Narayana Naik, South by: Property belongs to Krishna Naik.” - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40557 CRP No. 75 of 2023 5.2. It is contended that plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 3 constituted joint family and they were bound by Mitakshara School of Law. 5.3. It is further contended that plaintiff has got right in respect of suit properties and his right is at jeopardy in view of the alienation made by defendant No.3 to defendant No.4 in respect of suit properties. 5.4. In the written statement filed by defendant No.4, it is specifically contended that suit is barred by limitation in view of the fact that plaintiff has shown his age as 34 years in the plaint itself and has also mentioned his age as 34 years in the affidavit and thereby taking note of Article 109 of the Limitation Act, suit is filed admittedly beyond 12 years and therefore, plaint is to be rejected. 5.5. Learned Trial Judge after considering the objections from the plaintiff, rejected the application with ample and sufficient reasons. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40557 CRP No. 75 of 2023 6. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant No.4 is before this Court, in this revision petition. 7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that per se the suit is barred by limitation having regard to the fact that plaintiff is aged about 34 years and learned Trial Judge missed out the said aspect of the matter while holding that suit is in time. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned orders. 9. In every suit, the question of limitation cannot be treated as a preliminary issue as in number of suits, question of whether the suit is barred by limitation or not is a mixed question of law and fact. 10. Unless by way of a mathematical precision, if a suit cannot be held to be barred by limitation, in all such cases, the only course available to the Trial Court is to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40557 CRP No. 75 of 2023 proceed with the suit and not throw away the plaint at the threshold. 11. Since defendant No.4 has taken up the contention in his written statement that suit is barred by limitation, necessarily Trial Court has to raise an issue with regard to the question of limitation. 12. In the case on hand, even though learned counsel for the revision petitioner vehemently argued that the suit is barred by limitation, in the considered opinion of this Court, it is a triable issue which needs to be adjudicated before the Trial Court. 13. It is not uncommon that the alienation is made by the elders who act as kartha or assailed by their progeny or minor members. In order to safeguard the bonafide purchasers of the joint family properties; the question of limitation has been carved out under Article 109 of the Limitation Act. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40557 CRP No. 75 of 2023 14. Under Article 109 of the Limitation Act, twelve years is the period of limitation that is prescribed from the date of alienee taking possession of the property. In other words, it is not the date of sale that would be reckoned for the purpose of computing the limitation of twelve years but it is from the date of possession of the property that is to be taken note of. 15. These are all the mixed question of law and facts that needs to be adjudicated by the Trial Court after raising necessary issues. 16. Recording a finding or an opinion on this issue of limitation, at the threshold, would definitely prejudice the rights of the plaintiff as well as defendant No.4. 17. Therefore, refraining from recording a finding, if the parties are directed to canvass all favourable points including the question of limitation, in the trial, ends of justice would be met. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40557 CRP No. 75 of 2023 18. With that observations, following: ORDER Revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 38 CT: BHK