- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1906-DB RFA No. 1710 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1710 OF 2017 (PAR/DEC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. ANTHONY MARY D/O PASCAL SOLOMAN, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT NO.129, YAGAPPA REDDY ROAD, MARIYANNA PALYA, HAF POST, BENGALURU-24. 2. SMT. ROSE MARY W/O JOSEPH R, D/O PASCAL SOLOMAN, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NO.129, YAGAPPA REDDY ROAD, MARIYANNA PALYA, HAF POST, BENGALURU-24 3. SMT. REENA W/O DOMINIC S D/O PASCAL SOLOMAN AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NO.129, YAGAPPA REDDY ROAD, MARIYANNA PALYA, HAF POST, BENGALURU-24 Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1906-DB RFA No. 1710 of 2017 4. SMT. SHILPA RANI W/O BARTHALOME, D/O PASCAL SOLOMAN AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/AT NO.129, YAGAPPA REDDY ROAD, MARIYANNA PALYA, HAF POST, BENGALURU-24 ALL ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR. DOMINIC S/O SANDYAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.30, 1ST CROSS, KALAVARI BETTA ROAD, ANTHONY LAYOUT, MARIYANNA PALYA, HAF POST, BENGALURU-24 &APPELLANTS (BY SRI S.V. DESAI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. PASCAL SOLOMAN S/O M ANTHAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT NO.129, YAGAPPA REDDY ROAD, MARIYANNA PALYA, HAF POST, BENGALURU-24. 2. MR. M Y NOORANI SINCE DEAD BY LRS 2(a) ANEES YUSUF NOORANI S/O M.Y. NOORANI, AGED 60 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1906-DB RFA No. 1710 of 2017 2(b) SALMAN YUSUF NOORANI S/O M.Y. NOORANI, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT BELMONT, 37D, NAPEANSEA ROAD, MUMBAI-400006. ALSO AT: ZODIAC CLOTHING COMPANY LTD., NYLOC HOUSE, 254, D-2, DR. ANNIE BESANT ROAD, WORLI, MUMBAI-400030. (IMPLEADED V/O DT. 09.10.2025) 3. MR. N J JOSEPH FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFF, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NO.305/1, OFF WHEELERS ROAD CROSS, BENGALURU (POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF THE DEFENDANT NO.2) &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H.S. DWARAKANATH & SRI R.A. CHANDRASHEKARA REDDY, ADVOCATES FOR R-2(A & B); R-1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; NOTICE TO R-3 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 25.09.2024) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.07.2017 PASSED ON I.A.NO.5 IN O.S.NO.7457/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE XI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY (CCH NO.8) ALLOWING I.A.NO.5 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1906-DB RFA No. 1710 of 2017 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) 1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) against the judgment and decree dated 01.07.2017 passed by the learned XI Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH No.8) in O.S.No.7457/2015. 2. The plaintiffs had filed the aforesaid suit seeking a declaration that the Sale Deed dated 30.05.1991 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.2 was not binding on the plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs, the suit schedule property originally belonged to one Anthappa Reddy, who had executed a registered Will on 08.07.1970 bequeathing the suit schedule property in favour of his son-the defendant No.1 and the stepmother of the defendant No.1. After the death of Anthappa Reddy, the beneficiaries under the Will had applied for probate in P&SC No.10049/1989 and the probate was granted in favour of the legatees. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1906-DB RFA No. 1710 of 2017 3. According to the plaintiffs, under the Will, late Anthappa Reddy had given only life interest through the defendant No.3 to his stepmother and the sale deed executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.2 through the defendant No.3 with respect to the suit schedule property was not binding on them as the defendant No.1 was not having transferable title as on the date of the sale deed. 4. The defendants, however, contended that the defendant No.1 was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property on the basis of the Will executed by late Anthappa Reddy and the defendant No.2 had purchased the said property under the registered Sale Deed dated 30.05.1991. On the basis of the said sale deed, the defendant No.2 had become the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs were not the legatees under the Will. The suit of the plaintiffs was time barred, the Court fee paid was not proper and the suit was not maintainable under the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The defendant No.2 had also filed the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC praying for rejection of the plaint on the ground that there was no cause of action for filing the suit and the suit was barred by limitation. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1906-DB RFA No. 1710 of 2017 5. The Trial Court, after hearing the parties and after examining the Will, has held that the entire suit schedule property was bequeathed by late Anthappa Reddy in favour of the defendant No.1 and his stepmother. Considering the provisions of Section 138 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, the Trial Court held that even if life interest was created in the Will, after the death of the executant of the Will, the legatees become the absolute owners as if the Will had contained no such direction. 6. There was no dispute that the Will was executed by late Anthappa Reddy in favour of the defendant No.1 and his stepmother on 08.07.1970. On the date of execution of the Will, the plaintiffs were not born which would be evident from their present age. Therefore, they could not have been the legatees under the Will or having any right over the suit schedule property on the date of execution of the Will by late Anthappa Reddy. As the plaintiffs were not the legatees, there was no vested interest in their favour with respect to the suit schedule property as on the date of the Will i.e., 08.07.1970. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs for a declaration that the sale deed executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1906-DB RFA No. 1710 of 2017 defendant No.2 was not binding on them and they also sought for partition of the suit schedule property. 7. Article 58 of the Limitation Act would provide that in a case to obtain any declaration, the period of limitation would be three years and the time starts when the right to sue first accrues. In the present case, the plaintiff No.1 was aged around 36 years and she had attained the age of majority in the year 1997. All other plaintiffs are younger to the plaintiff No.1 and therefore, the suit should have been filed within three years from the date when the plaintiff No.1 had attained majority in the year 1997 i.e., on or before 2000. The suit was filed in the year 2015 and therefore, it was barred by limitation. The Will was executed by late Anthappa Reddy in favour of the defendant No.1 and his stepmother, who pre-deceased the executant of the Will and thus, the defendant No.1 became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. Under these circumstances, the plaintiffs cannot claim any right over the suit schedule property. As under the Will the legatees had become the absolute owners of the property, there was no cause of action for filing the suit. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1906-DB RFA No. 1710 of 2017 8. We have considered the impugned judgment and we do not find that the Trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the plaint. The suit was barred by limitation and it would not disclose any cause of action in favour of the plaintiffs as they were not the legatees under the Will executed by late Anthappa Reddy in favour of the defendant No.1 and his stepmother, who predeceased the executant of the Will. After the demise of late Anthappa Reddy, the defendant No.1 had become the sole owner of the suit schedule property, which he had sold to the defendant No.2 as per the Sale Deed dated 30.05.1991. 9. For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss this appeal. In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending IAs, if any, do not survive for consideration and accordingly, they stand disposed of. SD/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE SD/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE BKV, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11