- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46725 CRP No. 394 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 394 OF 2022 (IO) BETWEEN: 1. MR. SHEENA GANIGA AGED 71 YEARS, S/O LATE SHESHA MENYA AND LATE THUNGAMMA 2. MR. NARAYANA GANIGA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O LATE SHESHA MENYA AND LATE THUNGAMMA 3. MR ANANDA GANIGA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, S/O LATE SHESHA MENYA AND LATE THUNGAMMA 4. MR. CHIKKAYYA GANIGA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O LATE SHESHA MENYA AND LATE THUGAMMA ALL PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 4 R/AT MULLI MANE KUNDABARANDADI VILLAGE AND POST, KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI TALUK -576 235. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VIVEK HOLLA, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46725 CRP No. 394 of 2022 AND: 1. MRS. SUSHEELA GANIGA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O LATE SHESHA MENYA AND LATE THUNGAMMA 2. POORNIMA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, D/O SUSHEELA GANIGA 3. MISS POOJA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, D/O SUSHEELA GANIGA ALL RESIDING AT C/O RAVI SHETTY ARILI VILLAGE MUGUVA POST HONAVARA TALUK KARWAR DISTRICT - 581 334. 4. NARESH GANIGA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 5. ARUN GANIGA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 6. RAGHAVENDRA GANIGA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 7. VARADA GANIGA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.4 TO 7 ARE CHILDREN OF SHEENA GANIGA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46725 CRP No. 394 of 2022 8. SEETHA GANIGA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, D/O LATE SHESHA MENYA AND LATE THUNGAMMA 9. GOPI GANIGA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 10. SHOBHA GANIGA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESPONDENT 8 TO 10 ARE CHILDREN OF SEETHA GANIGA 11. VINUTHA GANIGA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, 12. VIKRAM GANIGA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.11 AND 12 ARE CHILDREN OF NARAYANA GANIGA 13. VANDANA GANIGA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, 14. VARUNA GANIGA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.13 AND 14 ARE CHILDREN OF ANDANDA GANIGA 15. KIRAN GANIGA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46725 CRP No. 394 of 2022 16. CHARAN GANIGA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.15 AND 16 ARE CHILDREN OF CHIKKAYYA GANIGA ALL RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 16 R/AT MULLI MANE KUNDABARANDADI VILLAGE AND POST, KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI TALUK - 576 235. 17. PARVATHI KULALTHI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, W/O GANAPA KULAL R/AT KUNDABARANDADI VILLAGE AND POST, KUNDAPURA TALUK UDPI DISTRICT - 576 235. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SADASHIVAIAH K.G, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; R4 TO R17 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.07.2022 PASSED ON IA No.IV IN OS No.91/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUNDAPURA, REJECTING THE IA No.IV FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a) AND (d) OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46725 CRP No. 394 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.Vivek Holla, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri.Sadashivaiah K. G., learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2. Present revision petition is filed by defendant Nos.1, 9, 12 and 15 challenging the order passed by the learned Trial Judge in O.S.No.91/2022 on 12.07.2022 rejecting the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘CPC’ for short). 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: 3.1. A suit came to be filed on the file of II Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kundapura by contending that the plaintiff and defendants - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46725 CRP No. 394 of 2022 are the legal representatives of Sheshamenya and Tungamma. 3.2. Genealogical tree reads as under: ±ÉõÀ ªÉÄÃtå (ªÀÄÈvÀ vÀAzÉ) vÀÄAUÀªÀÄä (ªÀÄÈvÀ ºÉAqÀw) ²Ã£À UÁtÂUÀ ¹ÃvÁ £ÁgÁAiÀÄt D£ÀAzÀ aPÀÌAiÀÄå ¸ÀIJî (ªÀÄUÀ) (ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ) (ªÀÄUÀ) (ªÀÄUÀ) (ªÀÄUÀ) (ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ) UÉÆæ ±ÉÆèsÁ ªÀAzÀ£À ªÀgÀÄt ¥ÀÆtÂðªÀiÁ ¥ÀÆeÁ (ªÉƪÀÄäUÀ) (ªÉƪÀÄäUÀ¼ÀÄ) (ªÉƪÀÄäUÀ¼ÀÄ)(ªÉƪÀÄäUÀ) (ªÉƪÀÄäUÀ¼ÀÄ) (ªÉƪÀÄäUÀ) «£ÀÄvÀ «PÀæªÀiï (ªÉƪÀÄäUÀ¼ÀÄ) (ªÉƪÀÄäUÀ) QgÀt ZÀgÀt (ªÉƪÀÄäUÀ) (ªÉƪÀÄäUÀ) £ÀgÉñÀ CgÀÄt gÁWÀªÉÃAzÀæ ªÀgÀzÁ (ªÉƪÀÄäUÀ) (ªÉƪÀÄäUÀ) (ªÉƪÀÄäUÀ) (ªÉƪÀÄäUÀ¼ÀÄ) - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46725 CRP No. 394 of 2022 3.3. Suit was one for cancellation of the partition deed bearing No.428/2008-2009 dated 22.05.2008 and 3231/2012-2013 dated 15.12.2012 and with a declaration that plaintiffs are having 1/6th share and also separation of the share by metes and bounds. 3.4. Suit was opposed by the defendants by contending that suit filed in the year 2022 seeking declaration after the period of three years is not maintainable and also defendants filed application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC. 3.5. Same was objected to by learned counsel for the plaintiffs. 4. Learned Trial Judge heard the arguments of the parties in detail and considered relevant aspects of the matter and dismissed the application by impugned order. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46725 CRP No. 394 of 2022 5. Validity of the said order is called in question in this revision petition by contending that per se suit is not maintainable having regard to the fact that partition deed is of the year 2008 and 2012 are called in question in the suit. 6. It is also contended that some portion of the properties were left out in the partition deed dated 22.05.2008 and therefore, another partition deed came to be executed in the year 2012. 7. It is further contended that seeking cancellation of a registered deed, it is only three years that would be the limitation period and suit filed in the year 2022 is per se not maintainable. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned order by contending that question of limitation cannot be considered at the threshold; having regard to the fact that two partition deeds being registered at two different point of time, itself shows that all was not - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46725 CRP No. 394 of 2022 well which requires material evidence to be placed on record. Therefore, question of limitation cannot be considered as a preliminary issue by mathematical precession in the case on hand which can be termed as a mixed question of law and fact and therefore, sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 9. Having heard the arguments of both the sides, this Court perused the material on record, meticulously. 10. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that if the parties have severed their relationship in the year 2008, there was no necessity to have a separate partition deed in the year 2012 for the remaining properties. 11. These are all the disputed question of facts which needs to be adjudicated in the trial by placing necessary evidence on record. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46725 CRP No. 394 of 2022 12. Whether the parties had postponed the partition of some of the properties till the year 2012 and therefore, second partition deed came to be executed in the year 2012 is a matter of evidence that has to be placed on record by contesting parties. 13. Without having such material evidence on record, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff by rejecting the plaint at the threshold is impermissible. 14. In majority of the cases, question of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts unless; the plaint can be determined by mathematical precision as to the question of limitation. 15. Thus, when there is a serious dispute as to the veracity of two partition deeds and suit is one for declaration, this Court is of the considered opinion that rejection of the plaint filed under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC by present revision petitioners is thus justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46725 CRP No. 394 of 2022 16. Hence, following: ORDER i. Revision petition is dismissed. ii. The observations made by this Court is only for the disposal of the present revision petition and shall not affect the rights of the parties in the pending trial. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57