IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Partition suit – A registered document provides complete account of a transaction to any party interested in property.
(2) Rejection of plaint – Partition suit – Plaintiffs cannot reignite their rights after sleeping on them for 45 years.

JUDGMENT :

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellants before this Court are defendants in a suit for partition filed by the plaintiffs (respondent nos. 1 to 5 herein) in the year 2023 under O.S. No. 6768/2023. The parties will be referred to as their position in the Trial Court.

3. The defendants moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘CPC’), seeking return of the plaint on the grounds that the suit was not maintainable as it was barred by limitation as well as on other grounds. The Trial Court allowed the application and dismissed the suit.

4. Thereafter, plaintiffs (Respondent Nos.1-5 before us) filed an appeal before High Court under Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC where High Court (hereinafter ‘appellate court’) vide order dated 08.01.2025 held that there were triable issues in the case and it could not be dismissed merely on an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and consequently allowed the appeal, remanding the matter back to the Trial Court.

5. This case pertains to a civil dispute concerning an immovable property situated at Pattangere Village, Kengeri, Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. The plaintiffs and defendants belong to the same larger family.

6. The original owner of the property was Boranna, who passed away leaving behind four sons: Nanjundappa, Siddappa, Basappa, and Shivanna. The suit for partition was filed by the grandchildren of Shivanna on 16.10.2023, alleging that the family owned ancestral joint immovable property and that their legitimate share had been denied. Consequently, they sought partition, separate possession and allotment of their legitimate share.

7. The four sons of Boranna, namely Nanjundappa, Siddappa, Basappa and Shivanna, had their respective families. Shivanna had five children namely, Mangalamma, Maribasamma, Drakshayanamma, Shadaksharaiah and Varaprasada. While Basappa had six children namely, Ganganna, Panchaksharaiah, Mandevappa, Shanthappa, Nagarju and Prakash. Nanjundappa and Siddappa also had a family of their own. The plaintiffs are the children of Mangalamma. The Defendants in the suit represent the remaining family (the appellants herein are the representatives of Shanthappa).

8. The defendants raised a primary objection, asserting that the property, originally owned by Boranna, had already been partitioned by way of an oral partition in the year 1968 amongst his four sons, through a family settlement. We have gone through the revenue records, as placed before us, and it is evident that this settlement was indeed acted upon. The revenue records indicate the names of each of Boranna’s four sons and also that the property had been mutated in their respective names, the reason assigned for the change in the revenue records is the family partition of the year 1968. Additionally, the defendants contended that, based on the terms of the family settlement, the daughter in law of Shivanna and other family members had disposed their property through registered sale deeds executed as far back as 1978. It is therefore clear that the plaintiffs had full knowledge of this transaction.

9. The defendants further argued that the plaintiffs were effectively challenging a sale deed executed by their own aunt. Since the suit for partition was filed without contesting the sale deed, that itself was legally untenable. Moreover, a registered sale deed constitutes constructive notice to the world unless it is a case of fraud, coercion, or minority and therefore there has to be a presumption in law that the plaintiffs had knowledge of the sale deed.

10. The Trial Court, considering these facts, allowed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and dismissed the suit, finding no cause of action for filing the suit. However, the appellate court found that there were triable issues that required consideration. The appellate court was of the opinion that the plaintiffs had a legitimate claim over the joint family properties, and in the absence of any notice to the